Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 7 of 7)

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study (“IS”), MND, and MMRP, any oral or written comments received, and the administrative record prior to making any decision on the proposed project. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the IS/MND and MMRP contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that the MND and MMRP has been completed in compliance with the Sate CEQA Guidelines and Section 6.21 of the City of Fontana’s 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA.
a. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final MND and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to it, and recommends that the City Council find, based on its independent review and analysis: (i) that the Final MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that the Final MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the city. As well the Commission recommends that the City Council find that no new significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final MND and any changes to the Final MND in response to comments or otherwise do not constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. b. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the MMRP for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and recommends that the City Council find that such MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
c. Adoption of MND. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (c)(2), the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Final IS/MND prepared for the project.
d. Approval of MMRP. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the MMRP, which was prepared for the project and make it a condition of project approval and is attached hereto.
e. Notice of Determination. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of approval of the project.
95133
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 4 of 32 ends

Section 3. General Plan Amendment Findings. The City of Fontana Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for GPA No. 22-009 in accordance with Section 30-31 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding: The purpose and intent is to keep an updated General Plan to reflect the current desires and needs of the citizens for the long-term growth of the City.

Findings of Fact: Changing the General Plan Land Use Designation of APN 0251- 151-10 from C‐C to I‐L would allow for the construction of an industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 355,995 square feet. This development will assist with the growing the industrial commerce center demand in the City and the surrounding area. The construction and operations at the Project Site will provide employment opportunities for the local workforce and address demands related to products being transported into the area. Additionally, properties to the north and east also have a General Plan designation of Light Industrial.

This amendment would create consistency amongst the project parcels and would remove a small area that has not developed commercially to date, nor would it be well positioned to do so in the future based on its size and location. The amendment would support General Plan Chapter 13, Goal No. 1, Action A: Establish a balance of industrial and manufacturing development along with services, especially in sectors with living wage jobs. The operations of the industrial commerce building will require employees for day-to-day operations, which will in turn provide jobs for local communities in the long term.

Section 4. Zoning District Map Amendment Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for ZCA No. 22-009 in accordance with Section 30-40 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding: The Zoning and Development Code may be amended by changing the development standards or zoning designation map boundaries of any zone whenever such an amendment
is deemed necessary to protect or promote the public's
health, safety or general welfare or when modification is viewed as appropriate in the context of generally accepted planning principles, surrounding land uses, and the General Plan.

Findings of Fact: A Zoning District Map amendment to change the land use of APN 0251-151-10 from Community Commercial C-1 to M-1 would
accommodate the development of an industrial commerce center building totaling 355,995 square feet. This project will provide attractive development with quality modern architecture with 95234
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 5 of 32 ends

additional landscaping. This type of development is appropriate in the context of generally accepted planning principles, surrounding land uses and the General Plan because it enhances the
surrounding area with an attractive street scene and high-quality landscaping. This type of development will be consistent with the areas to the south and west.

Section 5. Tentative Parcel Map Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) pursuant to Section 30-284 of the Fontana Zoning and Development code, and in accordance with Section No. 26 218(d) “Processing of application,” of the Fontana Municipal Code:

Finding No. 1: That the proposed map is consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site, which is I-L. The lot size with the consolidation will meet the lot standards of the FMC. The tentative parcel map consolidates twenty-one (21) existing parcels (APNs: 0251-151-03 through -07, -09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18 through -22, and -39 through - 44) into one parcel for the construction of an industrial commerce building totaling approximately 355,995 square feet, which is permitted in the General Plan. The Project Site is not within a specific plan.

Finding No. 2: That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: The site design for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) is consistent with the General Plan. The lot size and street configuration conform to the requirements of the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design and Community Mobility and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan, and Chapter No. 26 of the FMC and the Light Industrial development standards. The project includes all on-site and off-site improvements to meet all the General Plan goals and objectives; as well as all of the M-1 zoning requirements. Improvements consist of public sewer, public storm drain, streets, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area.

The Project Site is not within a specific plan.

Finding No. 3: The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed.

Findings of Fact: The Project Site for the industrial commerce center is approximately 15.84 acres, which is adequate in size to 95335
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 6 of 32 ends

accommodate the development. The existing topography is conducive for the project and development of the site did not require setback variances. The lot size is consistent with industrial developments to the south and west of the Project Site.

Finding No. 4: The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20834 (TPM No. 22-029) is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The area surrounding the project site has been developed with gas station, industrial uses, high school, residential and warehouse uses.

An IS, MND, and MMRP was prepared for this project pursuant to CEQA and the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA.

Based on the information in the IS, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment as a result of the project implementation and the MND, and MMRP. The use is anticipated based on the Land Use Designation and the Zoning and
Development Code. The design of the map will not cause
substantial environmental damage or will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) will not cause public health problems. The development will comply with the Zoning and Development Code and General Plan.

Improvements include connection to the public sewer, connection to the public storm drain, modification to the existing sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area. Therefore, the project shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 6: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) and public improvements will not conflict with access easements acquired by the public. Access to and from the Project Site would be provided from driveways on Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue.

The truck traffic will come in and out from the two (2) southwest 95436
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 7 of 32 ends

driveways along Slover Avenue and vehicle traffic will use two separate entrances on the southeast accessed from Slover Avenue and on the northeast accessed from Boyle Avenue.

Section 6. Design Review Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for a DRP No. 22-054 in accordance with Section 30-120 “Findings for approval” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding No. 1: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning and Development Code and any applicable Specific Plan.

Findings of Fact: The General Plan land use designation of I-L is intended for employee-intensive uses, including business parking, research and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services. The industrial commerce facility provides for a consistent blend of well-designed industrial development in the immediate vicinity. The Zone Change
Amendment for APN 0251-151-10 incorporates the entire project area into the M-1 Zoning District. The industrial commerce facilities provide for a consistent blend of well-designed industrial development in the immediate vicinity because it provides consistency with the industrial uses south to the west of the project site.

Finding No. 2: This proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in Chapter 30 and will result in an appropriate, safe and
desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Findings of Fact: The site and architectural design for the 355,995 square foot industrial commerce center building has been designed with office space totaling approximately 7,000 square feet. A gate-secured truck court with 46 loading docks on the south side of the building and 13 loading docks on the west side of the building. The use of glazing, parapets, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the
Project Site would be provided from driveways on Slover Avenue (truck and passenger vehicles) and Boyle Avenue (passenger vehicles only). Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and includes trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers.

The project will result in the construction of an industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 355,995 square feet. All new improvements such as driveways, streets,
sidewalks, drive aisles, and setbacks will comply with all 95537
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 8 of 32 ends

applicable building, zoning, and fire codes and will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 3: The proposal is in its design and appearance is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing resulting in a safe, well-designed facility while enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Findings of Fact: The industrial commerce center building has been designed with the use of glazing, parapets, canopies, accent colors and painted banding that will add structural and visual interest to the building.

Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the Project Site would be provided from driveways on Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue with passenger vehicle traffic utilizing separate entrances from commercial vehicles. Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcover. The building will be compatible with the industrial commerce centers to the south and west of the Project Site and will provide a quality, aesthetically pleasing development for the surrounding neighborhood.

Finding No. 4: The site improvements are appropriate and will result in a safe, well-designed facility.

Findings of Fact: The development complies with the Zoning and Development Code standards and the newly adopted sustainability ordinance.

The improvements include sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, parks, lighting, driveways, sidewalks and decorative paving.

Section 7. Development Agreement Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for a AGR No. 23-096 in accordance with Division 23 of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Findings of Fact: AGR No. 23-096 promotes the public health, safety and welfare of the community because the development agreement will enable needed public improvements at the Project Site and the economic development of the Project Site will benefit the citizens of the City.

Further, among the public benefits to accrue to the residents of the City as a result of the development agreement are:

1. The revitalization of an underdeveloped site.

2. The development of onsite infrastructure upgrades
that would not occur otherwise.

3. The generation of additional property tax.
95638
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 9 of 32 ends

4. The stimulation of adjacent areas in the City by
introducing new industrial facility and opportunities.

5. The implementation of numerous City planning
and economic development policies which benefit
the health and fiscal welfare of the City and its
residents.

6. The payment of a public benefit fee from the
Applicant to the City to offset certain private benefits received by Applicant under the development
agreement.

Section 8. Approval. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopts the following:

1. A resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and direct staff to file the Notice of Determination.

2. A resolution approving GPA No. 22-009.

3. An ordinance approving ZCA No. 22-009.

4. A resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

5. A resolution approving DRP No. 22-054 subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

6. An ordinance approving AGR No. 23-096, which includes the payment of a public benefit fee of $49,722.

Section 9. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

Section 10. Certification. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Section 12. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not 95739
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 10 of 32 ends

affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting held on this 19th day of March 2024.

City of Fontana
___________________________
Cathline Fort, Chairperson
ATTEST:

I, Ricardo Quintana, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 19
th day of March 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Ricardo Quintana, Secretary
95840
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 11 of 32 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 22-115 March 19, 2024
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834)
LOCATION: The project site includes property located on north side of Slover Avenue, south of Boyle Avenue, south of Interstate (I) 10 freeway, and west of Citrus Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs: 0251- 151-03 through -07, -09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18 through -22, and -39 through -44).

PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

A. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

B. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

2. The applicant /developer/ property owner shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City 95941
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 12 of 32 ends

of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain its own separate legal counsel to defend the interests of the City.

The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

The City of Fontana and the applicant acknowledge that the City would not have approved this project if the City were to be liable to applicant in damages under or with respect to all or any part of this application or this condition of approval.

Accordingly, applicant shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any matter arising from or related to this condition of approval. Applicant’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief, mandate, and/or specific performance.

3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) shall comply with all applicable development standards of, Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development), and the Subdivision Map Act.

4. The applicant/developer shall underground all utilities, pursuant to Section 27-50 through 27-54 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, which for the purpose of this condition shall also include all boxes, structures and/or other equipment located in the public right-of-way, any public utility easement(s) and on any private property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. A note to this effect shall be placed on the map prior to recordation of the final map.

5. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as approved by the City Council.

6. All Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

7. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834) shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection, has commenced within this period.

8. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City 96042
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 13 of 32 ends

Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Section No. 30-30 of the Municipal Code.

9. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise and construction complaints. The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays.

Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

10. Historic Archaeological Resources:

A. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes.

Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

B. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

C. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified 96143
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 14 of 32 ends

Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

11. The applicant shall meet all requirements identified in the Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards (Ordinance No. 1891).

12. A copy of the Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards requirements shall be placed on the final grading plans and the final building plans.

13. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions, regulations, and development standards of the Fontana Municipal Code.

14. The applicant shall adhere to all landscape setback requirements as outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code.

15. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Trip Reduction Measures in of the Zoning and Development Code (Section 30-962).

BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT:

16. The applicant shall have the parcel map recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits.

17. The applicant shall comply with the following grading requirements:

A. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-offs.

B. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods to an approved location, such as a public street, a public drainage system, etc.

C. Drainage water shall not cross over a public sidewalk. Drainage water may, however, cross under a sidewalk if an approved drainage structure is used.

D. A recorded drainage acceptance agreement is required from adjoining property(s) receiving flows from this property.

E. No water course or natural drainage shall be obstructed.

F. Minimum slope or grade for ALL drainage structures shall be one half (0.50) percent for concrete and one (1.0) percent for all other, or as otherwise approved by the Building Official.

G. Drainage water shall not pass from an ‘improved’ type of drainage structure to an ‘unimproved’ type of drainage structure (e.g., concrete swale to a dirt swale) unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. 96244
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 15 of 32 ends

H. A complete hydrology study using the latest edition of the San Bernardino County Flood Control Hydrology Manual, and complete hydraulic calculations justifying the size, slope, capacity, etc. of any and all drainage structures being utilized, shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The on site drainage system shall, as a minimum, be designed to handle the run off generated by a ten (10) year storm. Check for flooding of all on site structures (buildings) and all adjacent properties during a hundred (100) year storm.

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:

1. The relationship between the proposed finished on site grade elevations and the existing adjacent property grade elevations (Indicate any additional drainage water that may come from an adjacent property.); and

2. The ground cover/finished surface material being proposed (e.g., type of pavement, plant material, etc.); and

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

4. Any proposed and/or required walls or fencing.

18. The applicant is required to obtain permits for the removal and/or demolition of structures.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

19. The Project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, all sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standards. Main trunk sewer line shall be in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer.

20. The Applicant shall obtain design and plan approval from all utility providers having jurisdiction over the on-site and off-site utilities. Completion of all undergrounding of on-site and off-site utilities is required by Section 27-52 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.

21. The Applicant shall maintain all improvements and utilities within the public rightof-way, including street sweeping, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy by the City.

22. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be at least 400’ east of the intersection of Slover Ave and Citrus Ave, as measured from the limit-line along westbound Slover Ave to the western edge of the driveway.
96345
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 16 of 32 ends

23. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be separated by at least 250’ from adjacent driveways, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway.

24. Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered.

25. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to rightin and right-out movements only.

26. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in, leftin, and right-out movements only.

27. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to rightin and right-out movements only.

28. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be restricted to vehicular access only, until such time as the adjacent land use is no longer deemed a sensitive receptor, or until such time that the distance between the driveway and the sensitive receptor is sufficiently large per the relevant state and local regulations.

29. Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required AASHTO standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation.

30. The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

31. All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turn-around space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public right-of-way in order to depart or turn-around.

32. The applicant shall repair or replace any existing signal related equipment such as pull boxes and loop detectors that are damaged or impacted due to projectimplemented improvements.

33. Maintain 33ft curb to curb width for westbound Slover Ave prior to right-turn pocket at Citrus Ave.
96446
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 17 of 32 ends

34. The applicant shall design and construct a modification to the existing raised planted median along Slover Ave to allow for a minimum of 240’ of full-width queuing area for each of the westbound dual-left-turn lanes at Citrus Ave and to accommodate a 240’ of full-width queueing area for an eastbound left-turn lane into the project site.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

35. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.

36. The Applicant shall submit, and gain approval of a final drainage study prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual and Fontana Master Plan of Drainage.

PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION

37. The Applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

38. The Applicant shall record All map’s, lot line adjustments, right-of-way dedications, right-of-way vacations, easements, reciprocal access agreement as required for the development.

39. The Applicant shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval. All required public improvements generally along the project frontage for Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue, including but not limited to streets, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.

40. The Applicant shall perform a pavement quality analysis by a qualified geotechnical engineer for the half-width (median curb to curb) of Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue along the project frontage for the City to review and approve.

The half-width (median curb to curb) of Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue along the project frontage shall be fully replaced to bring the pavement structural section into conformance with City standards. Any remedial action less than full replacement shall be justified by the pavement analysis and shall bring the pavement condition to a 20-year pavement life.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

41. The Applicant/Engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans.

42. The Applicant/Engineer shall provide centerline ties to the City of Fontana reflecting proper setting of all survey monuments within the project limits and 96547
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 18 of 32 ends

replace any existing survey monuments damaged or removed during construction.

43. The Applicant/Engineer shall set survey monuments as required by the map and corner records must be recorded with the County.

44. The Applicant/Landscape Architect shall provide a “Landscape Certificate of Compliance” certifying that the work has been designed, installed, and will be maintained in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 1743, FCC Section 28).

45. All sewers shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Sewer video shall include clean-out connection, clean-out to lateral segment, lateral, and main line.

Contractor performing the video inspection must have a NASSCO PACP, LACP, and MACP certification. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff with an accompanying full report. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required. If a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) is required a full video inspection will be required as well at that time.

46. All storm drains shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Storm drain video shall include main lines and laterals. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

47. The Applicant/Engineer of Record shall submit a conforming copy of the recorded Memorandum of Agreement for the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Best Management Practice transfer. The Access, Maintenance, and the WQMP Certification for BMP Completion must be submitted to the City Project Engineer.

48. Slurry seal roads effected by the development as directed by the inspector. Slurry seal limits may extend past the project frontage to address existing striping / pavement markings that conflicts with new striping /pavement markings, repair trenches, and other areas as determined by the inspector.

49. Existing and proposed public catch basins in industrial areas shall be fitted with Bio Clean Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) trash screens in compliance with trash provisions of the water quality control plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bay and estuaries of California.

END OF CONDITIONS
96648
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 19 of 32 ends

EXHIBIT “B”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 22-115 DATE: March 19, 2024 Design Review (DRP) No. 22-054
LOCATION: The project site includes property located on north side of Slover Avenue, south of Boyle Avenue, south of Interstate (I) 10 freeway, and west of Citrus Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs: 0251-151-03 through -07, -09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18 through -22, and -39 through -44).

PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. This Design Review shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Department inspection, has commenced within this period.

2. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

A. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

B. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

3. The applicant/developer/property owner shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense. 96749
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 20 of 32 ends

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain legal counsel. The applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding.

This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

Except as required under applicable State and Federal law, the City of Fontana and the applicant acknowledge that the City would not have approved this project if the City were to be liable to applicant in damages under or with respect to all or any part of this application or this condition of approval. Accordingly, applicant shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any matter arising from or related to this condition of approval. Applicant’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief, mandate, and/or specific performance.

4. This project shall comply with all applicable provisions, regulations and development standards of the Fontana Zoning Code and Development Code, Fontana Municipal Code (FMC).

5. The applicant shall meet all requirements identified in the Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards (Ordinance No. 1891).

6. The applicant shall adhere to all landscape setback requirements as outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code.

7. The applicant/developer shall underground all utilities pursuant to Section 27-50 through 27-54 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, which for the purpose of this conditions shall also include all boxes, structures and/or other equipment located in the public right-of-way, any public utility easement(s) and on any private property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. A note to this effect shall be placed on the map prior to recordation of the final map.

8. A Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA)-qualified archeologist experienced with Native American artifact identification and approved by the City of Fontana shall be present to monitor the first two (2) days of site preparation/ grubbing; the first two (2) days of mass grading; and the first two (2) days of utility trenching. Such monitoring activities may be reduced or terminated depending on the findings and recommendations of the archeologist. In the event that prehistoric or historic cultural resources be uncovered during these activities, representatives of the tribal entity(s) who consider the project site to be within their traditional use area shall be contacted and invited to the site to review the find, and monitoring shall be continued at the discretion of archeologist.

9. Historic Archaeological Resources
A. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease 96850
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 21 of 32 ends

construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

C. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards.

All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

10. All Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions, signed by the property owner or legal representative, shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

11. The applicant shall either (1) execute and record the Development Agreement (AGR23-0096) promptly upon the effective date of the ordinance by which the Development Agreement is adopted or (2) pay the amount $49,722 to the City of Fontana within 25 days after the final approval of the entitlements as a public benefit fee in lieu of recordation of the Development Agreement.

12. Any foam treatment used for architecture treatments and/or projections located on the first floor shall be covered with concrete or similar durable material a minimum of ¼ inch thick, or as determined by the Director of Planning.

13. The current development fees must be paid prior to issuance of building/construction permits.
96951
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 22 of 32 ends

14. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Sections No. 30-30 of the Municipal Code.

15. There shall be five (5) feet of landscaping and two (2) feet of decorative concrete for passengers to step out of vehicles, total of seven (7) feet, at end of automobile parking aisles.

16. Color combinations and color schemes for buildings approved under a design review application shall not be modified or changed without prior approval of the original approving body by a revision to the original application. Minor hue color changes may be approved by the Director of Planning. The Director of Planning may refer minor hue color changes to the original approving body for consideration under a revision to the original application.

17. Exterior lighting compatible with the design of the building shall be provided for the parking lot. The lighting shall be directed and shielded so as to illuminate only the parking area and to avoid glare impacts on adjacent properties.

18. Sidewalks shall be provided for all new developments in accordance with the city’s circulation element of the General Plan.

19. The applicant/developer shall provide sufficient bicycle racks to accommodate 12 bicycle spaces.

20. The applicant/developer shall provide bicycle racks that include locks as well as electric plugs to charge electric bikes. The racks shall be located as close as possible to employee entrance(s).

21. All parking stalls shall be clearly marked by double striping pavement painting.

Parking stall sizes shall be measured from the mid-point between the striping. No parking spaces shall be designated in an industrial parking facility, except for disabled persons parking, van pool, carpool, or any other designated parking as required by law.

22. All signs shall be reviewed under a separate Design Review Sign application.

23. All roof-mounted equipment and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

24. All landscaping shall be healthy and maintained in a reasonable manner as determined by the Director of Planning or his/her designee. 97052
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 23 of 32 ends

25. The transformer shall be screened by a solid screen wall and mature, dense landscaping, and not visible from the public right-of-way.

26. After the fifteen (15) day appeal period, the applicant shall remove the notice of Filing sign(s) from the project site. The applicant may request a refund of the sign deposit; the request shall be in writing accompanied with a refund application.

The request shall be submitted to the Planning Department.

27. Development fees and Planning Department final inspection fees must be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

28. Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

29. The applicant/developer/property owner shall provide up-lighting on the perimeter and up-light proposed trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and his/her designee.

30. In the event that any off-site utility and/or infrastructure improvements are required as a direct result of future projects, construction of such off-site utility and infrastructure improvements shall not occur concurrently with the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of project construction. This requirement shall be clearly noted on all applicable grading and/or building plans.

31. Adhere to the City standard of one foot candle minimum for all entrances, exits, pedestrian paths, parking lots, and activity areas. Reflect all light fixtures on the site plan. All areas shall be illuminated during all hours of darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. Provide a photometric layout under separate exhibit to ensure the minimum light standard is met.

32. Incorporate an anti-graffiti coating onto the exterior of all proposed block walls to discourage graffiti.

33. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Trip Reduction Measures in of the Zoning Code (Article XIV, Transportation Demand Management and Trip Reduction Measures).

34. There shall be no refrigerated uses on site; unless a future tenant proposing to have such uses conducts an update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report) and any applicable studies/memorandums to amend this Condition of Approval.

35. The applicant shall incorporate hostile landscape into the interior, perimeter landscape setback areas to discourage subjects from accessing the site.

36. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise and construction complaints. The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days 97153
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 24 of 32 ends

a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays.

Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

37. Adhere to the Standard Building Security Specifications of the Fontana Police Department.

38. A copy of the Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards requirements shall be placed on the final grading plans and final building plans.

Prior To Issuance of Grading Permit

39. All Conditions of Approval and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT:

40. The applicant shall design the project to show compliance with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

A. California Building Code
B. California Residential Code
C. California Electrical Code
D. California Mechanical Code
E. California Plumbing Code
F. California Energy Code
G. California Fire Code
H. California Green Building Standards Code

41. The applicant shall install an automatic fire suppression system, which is required in all new construction per FMC Chapter 11 Article II. Design and type of system shall be based upon the requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the requirements of the Fontana Fire Prevention District.

42. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (909-396-2000). SCAQMD requirements shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permit if hazardous materials are stored and/or used.

43. The applicant shall verify that any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project complies with FMC Chapter 5 Article XIV.

44. The applicant shall verify that all perimeter/boundary walls are designed and constructed so that the outer/exterior face of the wall is as close as possible to the lot line. In any case, the outer/exterior face of the wall shall be within two (2) inches of the lot line. Distances greater than two (2) inches may be approved 97254
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 25 of 32 ends

prior to construction by the Building Official on a case-by-case basis for extenuating circumstances.

45. The applicant shall have the tract or parcel map recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits.

46. The applicant shall verify that all lot lines, easement lines, etc. will be located and/or relocated in such a manner as to not cause any existing structure to become non-conforming with the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the Building Code, or any other applicable law, ordinance, or code.

47. The applicant shall comply with the following grading requirements:

A. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-offs.

B. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods to an approved location, such as a public street, a public drainage system, etc.

C. Drainage water shall not cross over a public sidewalk. Drainage water may, however, cross under a sidewalk if an approved drainage structure is used.

D. A recorded drainage acceptance agreement is required from adjoining property(s) receiving flows from this property.

E. No water course or natural drainage shall be obstructed.

F. Minimum slope or grade for ALL drainage structures shall be one half (0.50) percent for concrete and one (1.0) percent for all other, or as otherwise approved by the Building Official.

The onsite drainage system shall, as a minimum, be designed to handle the runoff generated by a ten (10) year storm. Check for flooding of all on site structures (buildings) and all adjacent properties during a hundred (100) year storm.

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:

1. The relationship between the proposed finished on-site grade elevations and the existing adjacent property grade elevations (Indicate any additional drainage water that may come from an adjacent property.); and

2. The ground cover/finished surface material being proposed (e.g., type of pavement, plant material, etc.); and

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

4. Any proposed and/or required walls or fencing.
97355
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 26 of 32 ends

48. The applicant is required to obtain permits for the removal and/or demolition of structures.

49. The applicant shall verify that all exterior lighting shall be oriented, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

50. The following items (as applicable) shall be completed by the applicant and submitted to Building & Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification
D. Pad elevation certification
E. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Building Inspector

51. If hazardous substances are used and/or stored, the applicant shall provide a technical opinion and report, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards presented by the hazardous materials, may be required. This report shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm, or corporation and submitted to Building & Safety. This report shall also explain the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) intermixing in the event of an accident or spill.

52. The applicant shall combine the existing parcels into a single parcel, or a lot line adjustment shall be done so that the proposed structure(s) does not cross any lot line and complies with all requirements of the California Building Code, prior to any building permits being issued.

53. Please be aware that a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) will be required at time of plan check submittal. For more information regarding waste diversion, please contact Burrtec Waste at (909) 889-0911.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

54. The Project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, all sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standards. Main trunk sewer line shall be in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer.

55. The Applicant shall obtain design and plan approval from all utility providers having jurisdiction over the on-site and off-site utilities. Completion of all undergrounding of on-site and off-site utilities is required by Section 27-52 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.
97456
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 27 of 32 ends

56. The Applicant shall maintain all improvements and utilities within the public rightof-way, including street sweeping, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy by the City.

57.The applicant shall design and construct a modification to the existing raised planted median along Slover Ave to allow for a minimum of 240’ of full-width queuing area for each of the westbound dual-left-turn lanes at Citrus Ave and to accommodate a 240’ of full-width queueing area for an eastbound left-turn lane into the project site.

58. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be separated by at least 250’ from adjacent driveways, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway.

59.Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be at least 400’ east of the intersection of Slover Ave and Citrus Ave, as measured from the limit-line along westbound Slover Ave to the western edge of the driveway.

60.Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered.

61.Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to rightin and right-out movements only.

62.Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in, left-in, and right-out movements only.

63. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to rightin and right-out movements only.

64. Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be restricted to vehicular access only, until such time as the adjacent land use is no longer deemed a sensitive receptor, or until such time that the distance between the driveway and the sensitive receptor is sufficiently large per the relevant state and local regulations.

65.Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required AASHTO standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation.

66.The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

67.All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be 97557
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 28 of 32 ends

excluded if sufficient turn-around space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public right-of-way in order to depart or turn-around.

68.The applicant shall repair or replace any existing signal related equipment such as pull boxes and loop detectors that are damaged or impacted due to projectimplemented improvements.

69.Maintain 33ft curb to curb width for westbound Slover Ave prior to right-turn pocket at Citrus Ave.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

70. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.

71. The Applicant shall submit, and gain approval of a final drainage study prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual and Fontana Master Plan of Drainage.

PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION

72. The Applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

73. The Applicant shall record All map’s, lot line adjustments, right-of-way dedications, right-of-way vacations, easements, reciprocal access agreement as required for the development.

74. The Applicant shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval. All required public improvements generally along the project frontage for Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue, including but not limited to streets, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.

75.The Applicant shall perform a pavement quality analysis by a qualified geotechnical engineer for the half-width (median curb to curb) of Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue along the project frontage for the City to review and approve. The half-width (median curb to curb) of Slover Avenue and Boyle along the project frontage shall be fully replaced to bring the pavement structural section into conformance with City standards. Any remedial action less than full replacement shall be justified by the pavement analysis and shall bring the pavement condition to a 20-year pavement life.
97658
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 29 of 32 ends

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERFITICATE OF OCCUPANCY

76. The Applicant/Engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans.

77. Slurry seal roads effected by the development as directed by the inspector. Slurry seal limits may extend past the project frontage to address existing striping/pavement markings that conflicts with new striping/pavement markings, repair trenches, and other areas as determined by the inspector.

78. The Applicant/Engineer shall provide centerline ties to the City of Fontana reflecting proper setting of all survey monuments within the project limits and replace any existing survey monuments damaged or removed during construction.

79. The Applicant/Engineer shall set survey monuments as required by the map and corner records must be recorded with the County.

80. The Applicant/Landscape Architect shall provide a “Landscape Certificate of Compliance” certifying that the work has been designed, installed, and will be maintained in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 1743, FCC Section 28).

81. All sewers shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Sewer video shall include clean-out connection, clean-out to lateral segment, lateral, and main line.

82. All storm drains shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Storm drain video shall include main lines and laterals. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

83. The Applicant/Engineer of Record shall submit a conforming copy of the recorded Memorandum of Agreement for the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Best Management Practice transfer. The Access, Maintenance, and the WQMP Certification for BMP Completion must be submitted to the City Project Engineer.

84.Existing and proposed public catch basins in industrial areas shall be fitted with BioClean™ Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) trash screens in compliance with trash provisions of the water quality control plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bay and estuaries of California.
97759
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 30 of 32 ends

FIRE DEPARTMENT:

85. Jurisdiction: The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the Fontana fire Protection District (herein “Fire Department”). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

86.Fire Access Road Width: Prior to map recordation, all fire access roadways shall be designed to meet the requirements for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys, and private drives with a minimum twenty-six (26) foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. Buildings three (3) stories in height or more shall have a minimum access of thirty (30) feet unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height.

California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

87.Turnaround: An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12% grade and have a minimum of nineteen (19) foot inside radius and a forty-five (45) foot outside radius for all turns. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

88.Fire Lanes: The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for review and approval of all proposed signage and striping for all fire access roadways. All curbs adjacent to fire lanes shall be painted red and “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs shall be installed on public and private roads in accordance with approved standards. SBCoFD Standard A-2.

89.Water System Commercial: Prior to map recordation or lot line adjustment, all water supply systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix BB of the California Fire Code. A minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch and one (1) four (4) inch outlet (4”x2.5”x2.5”) shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart as measured along vehicular travel-ways. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard W-2.

The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4,000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 355,995 Square Foot structure.

90.Hydrant Marking: Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. SBCoFD Standard W-2.

91.Water Improvement Plan: The applicant shall submit “Water Improvement Plans” to Fontana Fire Prevention. W.I.P. to include site plan, existing & proposed PUBLIC fire hydrant locations, building construction type, square footage details of the largest building, total square foot of ALL floors in a multifloored building, square foot size of entire site, and description of what is being constructed/occupancy type.

Once approved by Fire Department, applicant will provide stamped/approved W.I.P 97860
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 31 of 32 ends

to water purveyor for their construction needs. ON-SITE PRIVATE FIRE WATER

SUPPLY SHALL BE INSPECTED AND IN WORKING CONDITION PRIOR TO PLACING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ON THE JOBSITE. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

92.Combustible Protection: Prior to combustibles being placed on the project site an approved paved roadway providing fire access and fire hydrants providing an acceptable fire flow shall be installed. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

93.Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13: An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13, and Fire Department standards is required. A fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The plans shall include hydraulic calculations and manufacturer specification sheets. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

California Fire Code Chapter 9 & SBCoFD Standard F-1.

94.Fire Alarm, Waterflow Monitoring: A water flow monitoring fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes is required for fire sprinkler systems with twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more. A fire alarm contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

California Fire Code Chapter 9, NFPA 72 & SBCoFD Standard F-5.

95.Smoke Removal: An automatic smoke removal system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes is required. The applicant shall submit three (3) sets of detailed smoke removal system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9.

96.Fire Extinguishers: Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter 9.

97.Commercial (large facility) Addressing: Commercial and industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. shall have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum twelve (12) inches in height and with a one and one half (1½) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard B1

98.Key Box: An approved Fire Department key box is required. The key box shall be provided with a tamper switch and shall be monitored by a Fire Department approved central monitoring service. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-4
97961
Resolution PC No. 2024-____

Page 32 of 32 ends

99.Security Gates: In commercial, industrial, and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3 100. Material Identification Placards: The applicant shall install, in all locations deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, approved material identification placards on the outside of all buildings and/or storage tanks that store hazardous or flammable materials. Additional placards shall be required inside the buildings when chemicals are segregated into separate areas. California Fire Code Chapter 50 & NFPA 704.
101. High-Piled Storage: The applicant shall submit an application for a High-Piled Storage permit for storage of over 12’ in height of Class I-IV commodities and/or over 6’ in height of high hazard commodities. Three (3) sets of detailed plans and a commodity analysis report shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The applicant shall submit to the Fire Department concurrently with any racking permits to the Building and Safety division. California Fire Code Chapter 32 & SBCoFD Standard S-1.
102. Secondary Access: The development shall have a minimum of two (2) points of vehicular access during each phase of construction for fire and emergency access purposes and for evacuation routes. SBCoFD Standard A-1 103. San Bernardino County Fire Standards/Codes: Items not directly called out on these Conditions of Approval, shall also adhere to currently adopted San Bernardino County Fire Standards, California Fire Code, & NFPA.

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
98062
ATTACHMENT NO. 6

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
98163
2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Order No:

WHEN RECORDED MAIL
DOCUMENT TO:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attn.: City Clerk
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant
to Gov. Code §§ 27383, 6103

FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT No. 23-096

BETWEEN

Order No:

WHEN RECORDED MAIL
DOCUMENT TO:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attn.: City Clerk
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant
to Gov. Code §§ 27383, 6103

FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT No. 23-096

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF FONTANA,
a California municipal corporation
and
CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
Dated as of April 9, 2024 for reference purposes
98365
4 98466
5 FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT No. 23-096
This FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT No. 23-096 ("Development Agreement and/or Agreement") is entered into by the City of Fontana, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (hereinafter "Owner"). This Agreement is dated April 9, 2024 for reference purposes only; it will not become effective until the "Effective Date" (defined below). City and Owner are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party”.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested that City enter into this Development Agreement with respect to that certain real property located on Slover Avenue in the City, consisting of 21 parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 0251-151-41, 0251-151-09, 0251-151-39, 0251-151-40, 0251-151-42, 0251-151-43, 0251-151-15, 0251-151-16, 0251-151-14, 0251-151- 19, 0251-151-20, 0251-151-21, 0251-151-22, 0251-151-10, 0251-151-44, 0251-151-07, 0251- 151-04, 0251-151-03, 0251-151-18, 0251-151-05, and 0251-151-06, as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement (the “Property”), and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of City; and WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind the City, including current and future City Councils of City, by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of City; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Development Approvals described in this Agreement, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and made findings concerning the mitigation measures and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Owner has filed an application for, and the City Council has approved, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-009, Zone Change Amendment (ZCA) No. 22-009, Design Plan Review (DRP) No. 22-054 and Tentative Parcel Map No.20834; and 98567
6 WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the City's Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code (as defined in Section 1 below), as amended; and WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and
WHEREAS, Development (as defined in Section 1 below) of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and Development Plan (as defined in Section 1 below) will provide substantial benefits to City and will further important policies and goals of City; and WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly Development of the Property, ensure the installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the Development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code are intended; and
WHEREAS, Owner has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure the vesting of its legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement and Development Plan.

COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement.

1.1.2 "City" means the City of Fontana, a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

1.1.3 "Owner" means CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and its successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.

1.1.4 "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; the construction of site work and the installation of landscaping. "Development" does not include the repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, or facility after the construction and completion thereof if undertaken during the Term of this Agreement. 98668
7 1.1.5 "Development Agreement Policies" means those certain development agreement policies approved by City pursuant to Ordinance No. , adopted on as may be amended, as Resolution No. , adopted on , as may be amended.

1.1.6 "Development Approval(s)" means all permits and other entitlements subject to approval or issuance by City in connection with the Development of the Property as set forth in attached Exhibit “C”, including, but not limited to: general plan amendments; zone changes; tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; design review; conditional use permits; zoning; and grading and building permits.

1.1.7 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of Development on the environment or other public interests, including those imposed in accordance with the MMRP.

1.1.8 "Development Impact Fee" means a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether characterized as a fee or a tax and whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by City to the applicant in connection with the approval of a Development for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include park “in lieu” fees specified in Government Code Section 66477, fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4.

1.1.9 "Development Plan" means the existing Development of the Property permitted by the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to Development of the Property.

1.1.10 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is recorded with the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder.

1.1.11 "Existing Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to, or as of, the Effective Date. Existing Development Approvals includes the Development Approvals described on the attached Exhibit “C” and all other Development Approvals which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date. The Existing Development Approvals are sufficient in order to develop the Property and to implement the Project as the Project is provided to the City to date.

1.1.12 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means all Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date.

1.1.13 “General Plan” means the General Plan adopted on [DATE] by Ordinance No. [NUMBER].

1.1.14 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City governing the development and use of land, including, 98769
8 without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property. "Land Use Regulations" do not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation, or official policy governing: the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; taxes and assessments; the control and abatement of nuisances; the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

1.1.15 "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means the Mitigative Declaration prepared for the Project.

1.1.16 "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" or "MMRP" means the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with required environmental impact mitigation measures approved by City Council Resolution No. _________ ___________, 2024 in conjunction with the City Council's certification of the MND.

1.1.17 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust, or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns in interest to all or any part of the Property.

1.1.18 "Parcel Map" means the subdivision map identified in City records as Tentative Parcel Map No. 20834and approved by the City Council on ____________, 2024.

1.1.19 "Project" means the Development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as referenced in 1.1.9, as such Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced, or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The Project will consist of a logistics facility totaling approximately 355,995 square feet.

1.1.20 "Property" means the certain real property located on Slover Avenue in the City, consisting of 21 parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-151-03 through -07, -09, -10, -14, -15, -16, -18, -19, -20, -21, -22, -39, -40, 41, -42, -43, and -44, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.

1.1.21 "Reservations of Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to Owner under this Agreement and reserved to City under Section 3.6 of this Agreement.

1.1.22 "Subdivision Map Act" means Government Code Sections 66410, et seq.

1.1.23 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with the Development of the Property.

1.1.24 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date.

1.1.25 "Term" has the meaning given in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. 98870
9 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement:

Exhibit “A” – Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit “B” – Map showing Property and its location
Exhibit “C” –Development Approvals

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. The Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

2.2 Property Ownership and Interest. The Owner represents and covenants that it is the legal or equitable owner of the fee simple title to the Property. To the extent Owner does not own fee simple title to the Property, Owner shall obtain written consent from the current fee owner of the Property agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and the recordation thereof.

2.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of five (5) years thereafter unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2.4 Sale or Assignment.

2.4.1 Right to Assign. Subject to the City's written consent, which shall not be unreasonable withheld, delayed or conditioned, Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act) to any person, partnership, joint venture, affiliate, firm, or corporation at any time; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer, or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with 1) an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to City, executed by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of Owner under this Agreement; and 2) the payment of the applicable processing charge to cover the CITY’s review and consideration of such sale, transfer or assignment.

Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any 98971
10 purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute this Agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.4.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such Agreement is executed. The City Manager shall have the authority to review, consider and either approve, conditionally approve, or deny any proposed sale, transfer or assignment that is not made in compliance with this section 2.4.

2.4.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, Owner shall continue to be obligated to the terms and conditions under this Agreement as to that portion of the Property sold, transferred or assigned, unless Owner is given a release in writing by City Manager or City Planning Director, which release shall be provided upon the full satisfaction by Owner of all of the following conditions:
(a) Owner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property sold, transferred or assigned.
(b) Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) Owner has provided City with the notice and executed assignment and assumption agreement required under Subsection 2.4.1(b) above. (d) In the event Owner still has a security instrument on file with the City at the time of transfer, the purchaser, transferee or assignee shall provide City with security equivalent to any security in place with the City and previously provided by Owner to secure performance of its obligations hereunder.

2.4.3 Effect of Assignment and Release of Obligations. In the event of a sale, transfer, or assignment pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.4.2 above:
(a) The assignee shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of the Owner with respect to transferred property, but shall have no obligations with respect to the portions of the Property, if any, not transferred (the “Retained Property”). (b) The Owner of the Retained Property shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of the Owner with respect to the Retained Property, but shall have no further obligations with respect to the transferred property. (c) The assignee’s exercise, use and enjoyment of the Property or portions thereof shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as if the assignee were the Owner.

2.4.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment after an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2.4.

2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of both Parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Sections 65865.1 or 65868 and the Development Agreement Policies. Any 99072
11 amendment of this Agreement, which amendment has been requested by Owner, shall be considered by the City only upon the payment of the applicable processing charge. This provision shall not limit any remedy of City or Owner for a Party's breach of the Agreement as provided by this Agreement. The procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to, or cancellation of, in whole or in part, this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure for adopting and entering into this Agreement in the first instance.

2.6 Termination. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

2.6.1 Payment of the Public Benefit Fee contained in Section 4.3.

2.6.2 Expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth herein.

2.6.3 Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding, or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement.

2.6.4 The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the ordinance approving this Agreement.

2.6.5 The completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by City (or other applicable public agency) of any required public dedications.

2.6.6 Termination by the City upon a Default by Owner, as provided in this Agreement.

2.6.7 Termination of this Agreement will not operate to automatically terminate any Development Approvals or other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no Party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement that has occurred prior to such termination, or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any public facilities and services mitigation fees paid pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement by Owner to City on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to Owner by City.

2.6.8 The obligation of Owner to pay the Public Benefit Fee as set forth in Section

4.3 shall have been satisfied and if it has not been satisfied, then shall survive the termination of this Agreement until all buildings have been constructed on the Property pursuant to the Development Plan or otherwise.

2.7 Notices.

2.7.1 As used in this Agreement, "Notice" includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment, or other communication required or permitted hereunder. 99173
12 2.7.2 All Notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either:
(i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) by overnight courier, on the first (1st) business day after being delivered to a recognized overnight courier. All Notices shall be addressed as follows:

If to City:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Attn: City Manager
Telephone: (909) 350-7600
If to Owner:

CHIPT Fontana Citrus Avenue, L.P.
527 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Attn: Philip J. Prassas
with a copy to:

Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 East Guasti Rd., Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
Attn: Fontana City Attorney
Telephone: (909) 989-8584
with a copy to:

CHIPT Fontana Citrus Avenue, L.P.
3819 Maple Avenue
Dallas, TX 75219
Attn: Lacey Sharkey
and to:

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &
Natsis LLP
Attn: Jonathan Shardlow
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614-7214
and to:

Winstead PC
500 Winstead Building
2728 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Attn: Greg Zimmerman

2.7.3 Either Party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a Party or an officer or representative of a Party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change.
99274
13 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY

3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including the Reservations of Authority, Owner shall have the vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan.

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. In connection with any Subsequent Development Approval, City shall exercise its reasonable discretion in the same manner that it exercises discretion under its police powers including the Reservations of Authority set forth herein. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters.

3.3 Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this time predict when or the rate the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that the failure of the Parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such Parties' agreement, it is City's and Owner's intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Owner shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan as set forth herein.

3.4 Reserved.

3.5 Changes and Amendments.

3.5.1 The Parties acknowledge that refinement and further Development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals. During the Term of this Agreement, if Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, including the Reservations of Authority. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to Exhibit “C” and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section 3.5. 99375
14 3.5.2 Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to this Agreement; but instead will require only the approval of City's Director of Planning; provided the change does not:
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or
(c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or (d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.

The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the City and the Owner. It is anticipated due to the term of this Agreement that refinements to the Development Approvals may be appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the City and the Owner.

To the extent allowable by law, the Owner and City shall retain a certain degree of flexibility as provided herein with respect to all matters, items and provisions covered in general under this Agreement and exhibits thereto. When and if the Owner finds it necessary or appropriate to make adjustments or clarifications, the Parties shall effectuate such changes, adjustments or clarifications through operating memoranda (“Operating Memoranda”) approved by the Parties in writing, which reference this Section of the Agreement. Operating Memoranda are not intended to constitute an amendment to this Agreement but mere ministerial clarifications; therefore, public notices and hearings shall not be required. The City Manager shall be authorized in his sole discretion, after consultation with the Owner, to determine whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section or whether the requested clarification is of such character to constitute an amendment to the Agreement which requires compliance with the provisions of this Agreement pertaining to amendments. The authority to enter into such Operating Memoranda is hereby delegated to the City Manager, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any Operating Memoranda hereunder without Planning Commission or City Council action and without public hearing. Although other matters may also fall within the scope of Operating Memoranda, any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate to the Term, permitted uses of the Project, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, grant of easement, or the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to Subsequent Development Approvals of City, revisions to Public Benefits (other than to the time for performance of such Public Benefits) or monetary exactions of Owner, shall be considered an “Operating Memorandum”.

3.6 Reservations of Authority.

3.6.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations and fees and expenses shall apply to the Development of the Property (collectively, the "Reservations of Authority"):
99476
15 (a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure.
(c) Regulations, policies, and rules governing engineering and construction standards and specifications applicable, including all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes adopted by the City. (d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; During the initial Term of this Agreement, no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to Development of the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development throughout the City. No such subsequently adopted Development Exaction within the aforementioned timeframe shall apply if its application to the Property would physically prevent Development of the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of Development set forth in the Development Plan. In the event any such subsequently adopted Development Exaction fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement, City shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted Development Exaction for the fees paid under Article 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees fulfill the same purposes. (e) Regulations that may be in conflict with the Agreement or Development Plan but that are reasonably necessary to eliminate or mitigate a serious threat to public health and safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied uniformly to other similar projects within the City and construed so as to provide Owner with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement.
(f) Regulations that are not in conflict with the Agreement or Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of Development of the Property, , shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the Development of the property during the Term of this Agreement.
(g) Regulations which may conflict with this Agreement or the Development Plan, but to which the Owner consents in writing.

3.6.2 Subsequent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying Subsequent Land Use Regulations that do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing Land Use Regulations or on the basis of any Subsequent Land Use Regulation which does not conflict with the Development Plan. Upon approval of any Subsequent Development Approval, such Subsequent Development Approval shall be deemed vested pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, without any further action by City or Owner being required. 99577
16 3.6.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce.

3.6.4 Intent. The Parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract.

3.7 Public Works. To the extent required by the Development Plan, Owner shall construct all public improvements related to the Project in accordance with City's or other applicable public agency's then applicable public works engineering standards.

3.8 Provision of Real Property Interests by City. In any instance where Owner is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by Owner or the City, Owner shall at its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements. In the event Owner is unable, after exercising reasonable efforts, including, but not limited to, the rights under Sections 1001 and 1002 of the Civil Code, to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements, and if so instructed by Owner and upon Owner’s provision of adequate security for costs City may reasonably incur, City shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary real property interests to allow Owner to construct the public improvements as required by this Agreement and, if necessary, in accordance with the procedures established by law, use its power of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. Owner shall pay all costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings. This Section 3.8 is not intended by the Parties to impose upon the Owner an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public improvements on land not owned by Owner, except to the extent that the Owner elects to proceed with the Development of the Project, and then only in accordance with valid conditions imposed by the City upon the Development of the Project under the Subdivision Map Act or other legal authority.

3.9 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the Parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the Development of the Property separately from or jointly with City and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.

3.10 Tentative Tract Map And Other Development Approval Extensions. With respect to applications by Owner for tentative subdivision maps for portions of the Property, City agrees that Owner may file and process tentative maps in accordance with Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 66498.1) of Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code and the applicable provisions of City’s subdivision ordinance, as the same may be amended from time to time. In accordance with the provisions of Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, each 99678
17 tentative subdivision map or tentative parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Property, shall be deemed to have been granted an extension of time to and until the date that is five (5) years following the Effective Date of this Agreement. The City’s City Council may, in its discretion, extend any such map for an additional period of up to five (5) years beyond its original term, so long as subdivider files a written request for an extension with the City prior to the expiration of the initial five (5) year term.

3.11 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with Development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to Owner, then and to that extent the rights and protections afforded Owner under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, Development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps.

3.12 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to provide adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project. Owner shall contract with the City for City-owned or operated utilities serving the Project for such reasonable prices and on such reasonable terms as may be mutually agreed to between the Parties.

4. PUBLIC BENEFITS

4.1 Intent. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Development of the Property will result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by the Development Plan and further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits on Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the Parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from the Project.

4.2 Development Impact Fees.

4.2.1 Amount and Components of Fee. Development Impact Fees (DIF) shall be paid by Owner. The Development Impact Fee amounts to be paid by Owner shall be the amounts that are in effect at the time such amounts are due. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall affect the ability of the City to impose new Development Impact Fees or amend the amounts of existing Development Impact Fees. Additionally, nothing contained in this Agreement shall affect the ability of other public agencies that are not controlled by City to impose and amend, from time to time, Development Impact Fees established or imposed by such other public agencies, even though such Development Impact Fees may be collected by City.

4.2.2 Time of Payment. The fees required pursuant to this section shall be paid to City prior to the issuance of building permits. No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, but the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 shall be paid prior to the re-issuance or extension of any building permit for which such fees have not previously been paid.
99779
18 4.3 Public Benefit Fee.

4.3.1 As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations as set forth in this Agreement, Owner agrees to pay to the City a one-time public benefit fee in the amount of Six Dollars ($6.00) per building square foot, which is estimated to be Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars ($49,722.00) ("Public Benefit Fee"). Payment of the Public Benefit Fee shall be in addition to any other customary fees or charges to which the Project would otherwise be subject (e.g., development impact fees and application fees). The actual amount of the Public Benefit Fee shall be set, based upon the actual building square footage of the floor areas contained within the previously commercially zoned parcel, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, and Owner shall pay the Public Benefit Fee to the City prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Public Benefit Fee shall not increase during the Term of this Agreement.

4.3.2 The City has sole discretion to determine the uses for the Public Benefit Fee. The City has not designated a specific project or purpose for the Public Benefit Fee. Owner acknowledges by its approval and execution of this Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Public Benefit Fee, that its obligation to pay the Public Benefit Fee is an essential term of this Agreement, and that Owner expressly waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of the Public Benefit Fee on any ground whatsoever, including without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), or otherwise.

4.3.3 Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the obligation of Owner to pay the Public Benefit Fee as set forth in Section 4.3.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement until all buildings have been constructed on the Property pursuant to the Development Plan or otherwise. If the Public Benefit Fee has not been paid prior to the expiration of the Term, payment of the Public Benefit Fee shall be waived and shall no longer be due and payable if the City, after expiration of the Term, amends the Existing Land Use Regulations so that the Project, or other uses which previously were permitted under the Existing Land Use Regulations, no longer are legally permitted.

5. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

If deemed appropriate, City and Owner will cooperate in the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities required as part of the Development Plan. City also agrees that, to the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed and sells bonds in order to finance such reimbursements, Owner shall be reimbursed to the extent that Owner spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the Parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring City or the City Council to form any such district or to issue and sell bonds.
99880
19 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE

6.1 Annual Review. As required by California Government Code Section 65865.1, the Director of Planning will review this Agreement annually, on or before each anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of the Agreement. Until the Public Benefit Fee is paid, Owner shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the Director of Planning within 30 days after written notice from the Planning Director. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by a reasonable annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated reasonable costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council.

6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of Owner's compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Director of Planning will conduct the special review.

6.2.1 During either an annual or special review, the City will ascertain the good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of the Agreement.

6.2.2 Upon completion of an annual or special review, the Director of Planning will submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning Owner's good faith compliance with this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.

6.2.3 If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has materially complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, then the review will be concluded.

6.2.4 If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that Owner has not materially complied in good faith with this Agreement, then, following notice and opportunity to cure, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement. Notice of Default shall be given to Owner prior to or concurrent with, proceedings under this Section.

7. PROCEEDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION.

7.1 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Subsection 7 that Owner has not materially complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, then City shall give written notice to Owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:

7.1.1 The time and place of the hearing;

7.1.2 A statement as to whether or not City proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and

7.1.3 Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Owner of the nature of the proceeding.
99981
20 7.2 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner. If the City Council reasonably finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement pursuant to a written agreement between City and Owner negotiated and signed by both Parties and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council to terminate this Agreement shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7.3 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of an annual or special review pursuant to this Agreement, Owner is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to Owner stating that after the most recent annual or special review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Director and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) Owner is not in Default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after an annual or special review. Owner may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.

Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or Owner, City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the annual or special review, but was concealed from the Planning Director or City Council.

8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

8.1 Remedies in General. The Parties agree that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable for damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application itself.

8.1.1 In general, and subject to those procedural prerequisites required under the Development Agreement Policies or this Agreement, each of the Parties may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of this Agreement, except that City shall not be liable in monetary damages to Owner, or to any successor in interest of Owner, or to any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for damages or claim any monetary damages:
(a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this Agreement; or
(b) For the taking, impairment, or restriction of any right or interest conveyed, provided under or arising under this Agreement; or (c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement. 100082
21 8.2 Specific Performance.

8.2.1 The Parties acknowledge that monetary damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate, and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties for the following reasons:
(a) Monetary damages are unavailable against City as provided in Subsection 8.1.1 above.
(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such time, Owner may be precluded from other options it may have had with regard to the Property or any portions thereof. Moreover, Owner has invested significant time and resources in the planning and processing of the Project. Owner will be investing even more time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon this Agreement and it is not possible to determine the sum of money that would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts.

8.3 Release. Except for non-monetary remedies, including the remedy of specific performance as provided in Section 8.2, Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees, releases City, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability based upon Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance that seeks to impose any monetary damages, whatsoever upon City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.

8.4 City's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Owner's Default. City may terminate this Agreement as to all or a portion of the Property upon Owner's failure to perform any material duty or obligation under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Default"); provided, however, City may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after providing written notice to Owner of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Owner to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, if Owner fails to cure the default within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the notice, or if the default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty (60) days but can be cured within a longer time, and Owner fails to commence the actions necessary to cure the Default within sixty (60) days and to diligently proceed to cure the default.

8.5 Owner's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon City's Default. Owner may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by City in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to City of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by City to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, City has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 60 day period and to diligently 100183
22 proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. The Parties may also modify this Agreement as set forth in Section 8.

8.6 Informal Resolution. The Parties recognize that good faith disagreements may arise between City and Owner during the administration and implementation of this Agreement.

The Parties will meet and confer in a good-faith attempt to resolve any dispute and will consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION

9.1 General Plan Litigation. City has determined that this Agreement is consistent with its Comprehensive General Plan, herein called General Plan, and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. Owner has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with City’s determination.

City shall have no liability in damages under this Agreement for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement or the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law.

9.2 Third-Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the Term set forth in Section 2.3 of this Agreement and the expiration date of all Development Approvals will automatically be extended by the longer of (i) the number of days in the period commencing on the date of filing any legal action of the type described in this Section and ending on the date that the claim, action or proceeding is either settled or fully and finally resolved in City’s and Owner’s favor, as evidenced by the expiration of all appeal periods with no further appeal being filed or the issuance of a full, final and non-appealable judgment or decisions; or (ii) the number of days in the period commencing on the date that a referendum conceding the Development Approvals is timely qualified for the ballot and the date that a referendum is certified resulting in upholding and approving the Development Approvals.

City will execute, in recordable form, any instrument which Owner may reasonably require to evidence the extension.

9.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of Section 10.2, Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury, or death (Owner's employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating 100284
23 to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder, including, but not limited to, the study, design, engineering, construction, completion, failure and conveyance of the public improvements, save and except claims and damages to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City or its officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and independent contractors. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal action.

9.4 Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action.

9.5 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 herein, City reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that Owner shall reimburse City upon written request for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, upon billing and accounting therefor. If City chooses to conduct its own defense, City’s separate counsel’s billing rates shall be identical to the rates City pays for its typical municipal litigation rates for legal challenges for the type being defended.

10. MORTGAGEE PROTECTIONS

11.1 The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the City in 100385
24 the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any Default by Owner in the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner.

The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the Default during the remaining cure period allowed Owner under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Owner's obligations or other affirmative covenants of Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City' s performance hereunder.

10.2 Deposit of Legal Defense Costs. In the event of any litigation or legal challenge filed against City as described in this Section 10, then within twenty (20) calendar days following written demand by City therefor, Owner shall deposit with City funds into a deposit account maintained by City (“Fund”) to reimburse City for City’s costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees, ultimately incurred by City to defend any such claim, action, or proceeding. The initial deposit shall be the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). The Fund, once established, shall at all times contain an amount necessary to cover not less than three (3) months of budgeted or anticipated expenditures by City relating to City’s defense of such claim, action, or proceeding, including any and all appeals from decisions related thereto, as such budgeted or anticipated expenditures are determined by City in its reasonable discretion. For such purposes, City may from time to time, in City’s reasonable discretion, make written demand upon Owner for deposit of additional funds by Owner into the Fund, in which event Owner shall deposit such additional funds into the Fund within twenty (20) calendar days following written demand by City.

11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

11.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.

11.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. Any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both Parties. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
100486
25 11.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the public benefits set forth in this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.

11.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.

11.5 Section Headings. All Section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

11.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.

11.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one Owner, all obligations of such Owner under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the Default of any such Owner shall be the Default of all such Owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such Owner as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided under Section 4 hereof.

11.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.

11.9 Waiver. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or the failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon the Default of the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of such Party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other Party thereafter.

11.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.

11.11 Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, epidemics, pandemics, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, shortages of material or labor, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the Party's control, (including the Party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the Party's control. If any such events 100587
26 shall occur, the Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either Party of any of its obligations hereunder will be extended for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the Term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances due to a force majeure event for more than five (5) years.

11.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the Party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited Party.

11.13 Successors in Interest. Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to the Development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each Party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.

11.14 Counterparts; No Electronic Transactions. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the Parties had executed the same instrument. In no event shall this Agreement be entered into, executed, terminated, altered, amended or modified by electronic mail or electronic record. Except as otherwise herein provided, this Agreement may be changed or modified only by written instrument signed by duly authorized officers or representatives of the Parties hereto.

11.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a Party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.

11.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Development of the Project is a private development, that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property by the Owner of such property.

11.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.

Upon the request of either Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 100688
27 11.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.

11.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event Owner is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, Owner shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon Owner. Owner is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto. Owner for itself, assigns and successors hereby waives the provisions of the Hague Convention (Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638).

11.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership, or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind Owner to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
[Signatures on following pages]
100789
28 SIGNATURE PAGE TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF FONTANA

AND XXX
City

CITY OF FONTANA,
a California municipal corporation
By:

Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
CHIPT Fontana Citrus Avenue, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: CHIPT Fontana Citrus Avenue GP, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its general partner
By: CHIPT Fontana Citrus, L.P.,
A Delaware limited partnership,
its manager
By: CHI West 119 Citrus Boyle, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership,
its general partner
By: CHI LTH GP, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its general partner
By: _____________________________
[Name], Vice President
ATTEST:
100890
29 By:

Germaine Key, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Ruben Duran, City Attorney
100991
30 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of ______________________ )
On _________________________, before me, ,
(insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
101092
31 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
101193
32 EXHIBIT A

TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FONTANA AND CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P.

Legal Description of the Property
Real property in the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20834, BEING A DIVISION OF THEFOLLOWING:
101294
33 101395
34 101496
35 EXHIBIT B

TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FONTANA AND CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P.

Map Showing Project Location
NORTH
101597
36 EXHIBIT C

TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FONTANA AND CHIPT FONTANA CITRUS AVENUE, L.P.

Development Approvals

SITE PLAN
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20834
101698
37 ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION – LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-L)
101799
38 ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1)
1018 100

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: X County Clerk, County of FROM: City of Fontana
San Bernardino Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
___ Office of Planning and Research Fontana, CA 92335
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

Project Title: Master Case No. 22-115, General Plan Amendment No. 22-009, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 22-009, Tentative Parcel Map 20834 (TPM22-029), Design Review No. 22-054, and Development Agreement No. 23-096 Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue Project.

State Clearinghouse Number: N/A
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: Irene Romero – Associate Planner. City of Fontana (Lead Agency) 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

Project Location: The project site is located on north side of Slover Avenue, south of Boyle Avenue, south of Interstate (I) 10 freeway, and west of Citrus Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. (APNs: 0251-151-03 through -07, -09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18 through -22, and - 39 through -44).

Project Description: Master Case No. 22-115, General Plan Amendment No. 22-009, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 22-009, Tentative Parcel Map 20834 (TPM22-029), Design Review No. 22-054, and Development Agreement No. 23-096 – A request to construct an industrial commerce building totaling approximately 355,995 square feet on a vacant lot totaling approximately 15.84 acres.

Project Proponent & Address: Irene Romero – Associate Planner, City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana CA 92335.

Contact Name & Phone: Crow Holdings, Jorge Garcia, (909) 358-7715 This is to certify that on April 9, 2024, the City Council of the City of Fontana approved the above-described project along with the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Declaration, and made the following determinations:

1. The project ____ will X will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.

3. Mitigation measures X were were not made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations __ was X was not adopted for this project.

5. Findings were X were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Addendum are specified as follows:

Custodian: City of Fontana, Planning Department
Location: 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
__________________________
Salvador Quintanilla
Senior Planner
Date Received for Filing
ATTACHMENT NO.7 1019 101
1 Irene Romero
From: Philip Viramontes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 12:39 PM
To: Irene Romero; Irene Romero
Subject: Fw: Notice of Filing DRP22-000049 and TPM22-000022

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello
I would like to attach my previous comments concerning the CHIPT Fontana Citrus Avenue application to be on the record for the hearing that's set to take place for Master Case No. 22-115: General Plan Amendment No. 22-009, Zone District Map Amendment No. 22-009 Tentative Parcel Mao No. 20834 (TPM No. 22-029), Design Review No. 22-054 and Development Agreement (AGR) No. 23-096. Thank you.

Philip Viramontes
909-578-1089
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Philip Viramontes <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 09:05:32 AM PDT
Subject: Notice of Filing DRP22-000049 and TPM22-000022 Hello
I would like to just go on the record by saying. My name is Philip Viramontes and I am the property owner at 10446 Oleander Ave in the city of Fontana. The reason for this email is to express some concerns and questions about the Notice of Filing DRP22-000049 and TPM22-000022. I am not in support of this warehouse development at this time. I've seen from the map presented to me by real estate agent Luis Ramos from Colliers representing Crow Holdings that their intention is to leave all the homes on Oleander's west side between Boyle and Slover the way they are. His exact words to me were, "they dont want it, it's all just street dedication for the developer". I became aware of the developer's intentions when with an offer was presented to sell 16228 Slover Avenue another property that we own within this Notice of Filing. I am not against the warehouse development, but I am against having warehouses being put up north, east, south, and west of me without an option to sell and relocate. Thats the situation we are in on Oleander. To my understanding some of my neighbors are potential sellers and I think moving forward and approving this Notice of Filing is not the right thing to do at this time. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood since the 80's and we understand the future plans for this area is warehouse development, however I think it should be done the right way. Not pick and choose what properties you want out of convenience. I've sold properties in this area in the past 10447 Oleander Fontana to Duke Realty and 16550 and 16547 Boyle Ave Fontana to Panattoni Development because they wanted to square off the whole block to make it look the way it should without homes stuck in the middle of these warehouses. It should be warehousing or homes, not both. As of now we still own 10446 Oleander Avenue Fontana, 16228 Slover Avenue Fontana, 16252 Boyle Avenue Fontana, 16236 Boyle Avenue Fontana, 16204 Boyle Avenue Fontana, and 16190 Boyle Avenue Fontana California 92337. Roughly over 6 acres. If the city chooses to approve this development, I don't see the reason in selling anymore property.

What options are we going to have should the city decide to move forward with this plan. What are we able to do with the properties being zoned M1 and M2 or at that point are they just homes stuck in the middle of warehouses? Also, are the plans being looked at from an environmental standpoint? How will traffic and noise affect us? Lastly, what is the appeals process? Thank you for your time.

Philip Viramontes
16190 Boyle Ave
Fontana, Ca. 92337
9095781089
1020 102

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

In compliance with Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof, the Agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Should you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Department by calling (909) 350-7602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Master Case No. 22-115: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-009, Zone Change Amendment (ZCA) No. 22-009, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 22-029, Design Review (DRP) No. 22-054 and Development Agreement (AGR) No. 23-096.

The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from Community Commercial (C-C) to Light Industrial (I‐L), a Zoning District Map Amendment to amend the zoning designation from Community Commercial (C-1) to Light Industrial (M-1) for APN: 0251-151-10, a Tentative Parcel Map for the consolidation of twentyone (21) parcels into one (1) parcel, and Design Review for site and architectural review to construct a 355,995 square foot industrial commerce building. The project will include site improvements of parking, landscaping, and other associated on-site and off-site improvements on a 15.84-acre project site. The applicant has also prepared a development agreement.

Environmental
Determination:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) has been prepared
pursuant to Section 15070 of the
California Environmental Quality
Act and per Section 6.04 of the
2019 Local Guidelines for
Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act.

Location: The project site is located on the
north of Slover Avenue and
south of Boyle Avenue and on
the east side of Citrus Avenue.
(APNs:0251-151-03 through -07,
-09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18
through -22, and -39 through -
44)
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
1021 103
Date of Hearing: March 19, 2024
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Time of Hearing: 6:00 PM
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Irene Romero Associate Planner, at (909) 350-6658 or email at [email protected].

The period for comments regarding the mitigated negative declaration for this project is from February 27, 2024, to March 18, 2024. The initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration are available for review at City Hall (8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335) and online at https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents. Please submit your comments via email to Irene Romero, Associate Planner, at [email protected].

The project site is not listed as a hazardous waste site described in any lists as enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION

AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY HALL.

IF YOU CHALLENGE IN COURT ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING A PUBLIC HEARING

ITEM, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE

RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Publish: February 23, 2024
1022 104
ATTACHMENT NO. 18

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
1023

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 572-0400
March 18, 2024
Irene Romero VIA EMAIL TO:

Associate Planner [email protected]
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Subject: Comments on Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse MND (SCH NO. 2024020971) Dear Ms. Romero,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes the construction of an approximately 355,995 s.f. warehouse building, including 348,995 s.f. of warehouse space and 7,000 s.f. of office space (3,500 sf on the mezzanine level and 3,500 sf on the ground floor) on a 15.84 net acre site. The building proposes 50 truck/trailer loading dock doors (42 on the south side of the building and 8 on the west side of the building), 97 passenger car parking spaces, and 75 truck/trailer parking spaces. Operation of the proposed development is assumed to be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Discretionary actions required to implement the project include:

1. General Plan Amendment No. 22-009 to change the land use designation for APN 251-151- 10 from Community Commercial to Light Industrial.

2. Zone Change No. 22-009 to change the zoning designation for APN 251-151-10 from Community Commercial to Light Industrial.
1024
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 2 ends

3. Design Review Project No. 22-054: Proposal for (1) industrial warehouse building measuring a total of 355,995 SF, that includes 7,000 square foot office of the first floor and 3,500 square foot mezzanine on 21 parcels totaling 16.12 acres.

4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-029 - To consolidate 21 parcels into one (1) parcel for the project for the proposal of one (1) industrial warehouse building measuring a total of 355,995 SF. The total acreage will be 16.12 gross acres which will be reduced to 15.84 net acres following street dedication.

5. Environmental No. 22-029 to review the environmental impacts associated the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2.0 Project Description
The Project Description states that “Preliminary Project site grading is anticipated to require approximately 18,600 cubic yards of cut and 24,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in the net import of approximately 5,400 cubic yards of soil.” There is no mechanism for public verification of this conclusion as a Grading Plan is not included for public review. An EIR must be prepared to include a wholly accurate, detailed, and complete Grading Plan to determine the quantity of soils/materials to be imported/exported from the site. These grading truck hauling trips must be included for all sections of environmental analysis, including but not limited to the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation analysis.

The MND also does not include a detailed floor plan or detailed elevations for the proposed project.

The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, grading plan, elevations, and written narrative. The figure provided by Exhibit 6: Conceptual Site Plan is illegible, blurry, and does not effectively provide any meaningful project information. Exhibit 7:

Building Elevations does not list the height of the proposed building. The application items included are not useful for public review and do not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand. An EIR must be prepared to include all of these application items in their unedited and complete form, and recirculated for public review.

Further, the analysis within Table 2.10-5: Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891 is misleading and erroneous. For example, the MND’s analysis with the requirement, “Location of Truck Docks 9-71.(f) Unless impossible, docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors. As best able, docks, truck entries and drive aisles shall be located away from nearby sensitive receptors,” states that, “The site plan and layout of the drive aisle and docks shows that both docks are facing away from nearby sensitive receptors 1025
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 3 ends

and are being recessed on the western and southern sides of the site, respectively. The trailer stalls area and setbacks of the building from the eastern and southern property lines would also limit noise transmission originating from the docks.” This analysis excludes that the truck entry and drive aisles on the east side of the property are immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors.

Additionally, the northwest project driveway on Boyle Avenue will be utilized by trucks, and sensitive receptors are located on this portion of Boyle Avenue. The MND has presented a skewed environmental analysis in order to artificially demonstrate compliance with Ordinance 1891 and an EIR must be prepared in order to provide an accurate and adequate environmental analysis.

The Project Description also states that the “Projectsite is vacant,” and the Population and Housing Analysis states that the, “Project site is currently vacant with no housing or other related structures present,” to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts to population and housing.

The MND excludes from the Project Description and associated analysis that the project site was developed with 15 single family dwellings. According to the City’s building permit data portal, building permits (BLD23-002968 through BLD23-0029831) were issued to demolish all 15 existing residences on the site with a date of May 8, 2023. This is well after the proposed project was submitted to the City on August 29, 2022 and after environmental analysis commenced.

BPC23-0005182 (Building Plan Check) dated March 9, 2023 indicates that the scope of work included “demolition of existing buildings/structures including foundations, hardscape, existing trees, overhead utilities and septic tanks within the limit of work; to also include removal and cap of all sewer and water lines 5 feet up to the public right of way.” This is implementation of the project prior to CEQA review and presents a significant issue as mitigation measures CUL 1, CUL 2, CUL 3, GEO 1, PAL 1, HAZ 1, HAZ 2, NOI 1, TCR 1, TCR 2, TCR 3, TCR 4, and TCR 5 all involve construction/soils related activity and the project has not adhered to these measures. An EIR must be prepared to describe the demolition/site preparation that has already occurred, note that the activity did not comply with the above mitigation measures, and provide a finding of significance in each of these areas because the completed demolition/site preparation is not able to comply with the mitigation measures listed above.

4.3 Air Quality, 4.6 Energy, and 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Please refer to attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis. 1 https://acaprod.accela.com/FONTANA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=22H IS&capID2=00000&capID3=07U4U&agencyCode=FONTANA&IsToShowInspection= 2 https://acaprod.accela.com/FONTANA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Building&capID1=23HIS&capID2=00000&c apID3=03PZX&agencyCode=FONTANA
1026
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 4 ends

The MND provides a brief list of information regarding the project’s census tract scores within CalEnviroScreen 4.03, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability. However, the MND does not utilize this information to meaningfully analyze the impacts of the proposed project (and in a cumulative setting) to illustrate the disproportionate environmental and health impacts faced by the community due to exponential industrial warehouse development in Fontana. The proposed project s census tract (6071002601) ranks worse than 97% of the rest of the state in overall pollution burden. The proposed project’s census tract and surrounding community, including residences immediately adjacent to the east and north, Jurupa Hills High School adjacent to the south, Citrus High School to the southeast, and other residences to the west, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen.

For example, the project census tract ranks in the 95th percentile for ozone burden, the 94th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, the 78th percentile for diesel particulate matter burden, and the 80th percentile for traffic impacts. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck/trailer activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure4. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer5.

The census tract ranks in the 96th percentile for contaminated drinking water. Poor communities are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state6. The census tract ranks in the 85th percentile for toxic releases. People living near facilities that emit toxic releases may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident7.

The census tract also ranksin the 87th percentile forsolid waste facility impacts and 94th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations8. Hazardous waste 3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 4 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 5 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulatematter 6 OEHHA Contaminated Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 7 OEHHA Toxic Releases https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/toxic-releases-facilities 8 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-andfacilities 1027
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 5 ends

generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people9.

The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 83% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water10.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 66% Hispanic, 9% Asian-American and 8% African-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 73% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community has a high rate of poverty, meaning 51% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care11. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution12. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution13. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 55th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 44th percentile for incidence of asthma.

Additionally, the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6071002606 (south), 6071003301 (north), 6071003302 (north), 6071002501 (north) and 6071004001 (east)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities14. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the City are disproportionately impacting these communities. The MND does not discuss that the surrounding area are disadvantaged communities and does not utilize this information in its analysis. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts of the warehousing and logistics industry in the City have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of environmental impacts (including at a cumulative level) particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of an EIR. 9 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 10 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 11 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 1028
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 6 ends

The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares15 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, it cannot conclude the project will generate less than significant impacts and a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software.

It must also be noted that the City is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission16. According to the CA Energy Commission, “Local jurisdictions wishing to enforce locally adopted energy standards that exceed the current energy code are required to apply to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate their local ordinance, or reach code, saves more energy than current statewide energy standards and is cost effective.” Therefore, compliance with the General Plan does not comply with CA Energy Commission standards or AB 32/SB 32. The MND is misleading to the public and decision makers by stating compliance with these standards when the local jurisdiction standards have not been approved by the CA Energy Commission. The MND also uses uncertain and misleading language in stating that, “Project would be subject to the California Title 24 Building Code energy efficiency standards for nonresidential buildings, which would help reduce energy consumption. Equipment and vehicles associated with construction and operation of the Project would also be subject to fuel standards at the state and federal level. The Project would inherently benefit from programs implemented to achieve the goals of the Sustainable Freight Plan, such as the turnover of older, less fuel-efficient trucks, as fuel economy standards are rolled out and Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) trucks become more widely available and cost effective for business.” The MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to demonstrate that the project being “Subject to” state requirements ensures that the project will comply with these requirements or implement any of these future actions such as “operation of the Project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to advances in fuel economy,” or providing 15 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1
16 Local Ordinances Exceeding the 2022 Energy Code, California Energy Commission https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-2
1029
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 7 ends

any quantification of the alleged reductions. The MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to conclude that the project does not result in a significant and unavoidable impact and an EIR must be prepared.

4.11 Land Use and Planning
The MND utilizes misleading language in discussing the project’s proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designations for a portion of the project site from Community Commercial to Light Industrial. The MND states that, “Conversion of that parcel to industrial uses would not in and of itself contribute to any significant impacts as it is on the northeast corner of Citrus Avenue and Slover Avenue and there is already a warehouse located on the southeast corner of that intersection. Therefore, changing this small (1.2- acre site or 7% of the site) from commercial to industrial use would not cause a significant land use change to the Project area as the remaining 16.19 acres of the site (93%) is already designated for industrial use.” The MND utilizes a misleading claim that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations because other warehouses exist in the vicinity of the site and the majority of the remainder of the project site is already designated Light Industrial. This reasoning does not sufficiently support the notion that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning requirements. The MND does not provide any analysis or discussion regarding the loss of commercially designated land and that this will contribute to increased VMT among residents and students in the project vicinity in order to access daily needs and services, as demonstrated by the City’s General Plan statements that the Community Commercial land use is sited "in locations where neighborhood serving retail is more suitable,” “Community Commercial can function as a transitional land use,” and “an intersection with C-C land uses can serve surrounding residents without the impacts of larger scale CG retail.”
The MND does not provide any substantial or meaningful evidence or analysis of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Table 4.11-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis also does not consider the proposed project’s required land use changes in its discussion and analysis. An EIR must be prepared to provide a consistency analysis with all Fontana General Plan objectives, goals, policies, and actions, including but not limited to the following:

6. EJ Goal 2: The City of Fontana incorporates health considerations into the development review process.

7. Policy: Support including Healthy Fontana development analysis in relevant development project reviews.
1030
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 8 ends

8. Healthier Fontana Goal 1 Policy 3: Support local and regional initiativesto improve air quality in order to reduce asthma while actively discouraging development that may exacerbate asthma rates.

9. Sustainability and Resilience Element Goal 4: Reduce GHG emissions by 2030.

10. Circulation Element Goal 5: Fontana s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and economic vitality.

11. Circulation Element Policy: Maintain levels of service for passenger vehicles, transit vehicles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians that are appropriate for the context of the area.

Notably, the analysis provided for several General Plan Goals and Policies is misleading and/or erroneous. For example, the consistency analysis with Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the Land Use Map guide land-use decision making concludes the project is consistent with these items, stating that, “As shown below, the Project is consistent with both the Strategic Policy Map and the Land Use Map.” The project is not consistent with the Land Use Map and requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed. An EIR must be prepared to include thisfor information and analysis and include a finding of significance.

Further, the consistency analysis for Action A: Exhibit 15.7 Strategic Policy Map. Legend says goal for areas immediately north and south of the I-10 Freeway is to… “continue upgrading light industrial areas to be regionally competitive,” concludes the project is consistent with this, stating that, “The Project islocated justsouth of I10 within area designated for light industrial uses. Project is a warehouse consistent with the light industrial land use designation and zoning.”The project is not consistent with the Land Use Map and requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed. An EIR must be prepared to include this for information and analysis and include a finding of significance.

The MND’s consistency analysis with, “Light Industry. Warehousing, trucking, manufacturing and support industries are focused especially along regional transportation routes. Some of these areas need upgrades in order to increase or maintain competitiveness,” concludes the project is consistent with this, stating that, Consistent. The Project is in an area designated for light industrial land uses south of the I-10, a regional transportation route.” The project is not consistent with the Land Use Map, is not entirely located in an area designated for light industrial development, and requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed. An EIR must be prepared to include this for information and analysis and include a finding of significance. 1031
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 9 ends

The MND’s consistency analysis with, “Action B. Use the Land Use Map to designate land uses in the city. (GP Exhibit 15.8) LUM I-L: Light Industrial (0.1–0.6 FAR). Employee-intensive uses, including business parks, research and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services are allowed. Warehouses that are designed in ways that limit off-site impacts are also permitted,” concludes the project is consistent with this, stating that, Consistent. The Project is consistent with the planned light industrial uses in this area shown on the Land Use Map (LUM). The Initial Study demonstrates that with recommended mitigation, standard conditions, and regulatory compliance, the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts.” The project is not consistent with the Land Use Map and requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed. An EIR must be prepared to include this for information and analysis and include a finding of significance.

The MND has not provided any discussion or analysis that the project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation on the project site from Community Commercial to Light Industrial and a Zone Change to change the zoning designation from Community Commercial to Light Industrial. Therefore, the proposed project was not included for analysis as part of the General Plan and its EIR, AQMP, or RTP/SCS. An EIR must be prepared with a finding of significance.

Table 4.11-4: Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Goals also provides a misleading and erroneous consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2020-2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. The 2020 RTP/SCS is notably adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, as required by California law (SB 375 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), detailed through the plan itself and Resolution No. 20-621-1 adopting the plan17. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence (as noted throughout this comment letter and attachments), the proposed project has significant potential for inconsistency with Goal 5 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, Goal 6 to support healthy and equitable communities, and Goal 7 to adapt to a changing climate. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance due to these inconsistencies with SCAG’s 2020-2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. Notably, the MND is egregiously inadequate as an informational document here in that its consistency analysis for Goal 6 to support healthy and equitable communities is an incomplete sentence: “The Project will comply with the requirements of the.”
17 SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176 1032
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 10 ends

The MND does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan. An EIR must be prepared with this information for discussion in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

Further, the Transportation section of the MND lists the following “Traffic Conditions of Approval: After review of the proposed site plan, City staff recommended the following COAs in January 2024 to assure the project would not result in adverse traffic circulation or congestionrelated conditions in the vicinity of the Project site:

A) The applicant shall design and construct a modification to the existing raised planted median along Slover Ave to allow for a minimum of 240 of full-width queuing area for each of the westbound dual-left-turn lanes and to accommodate a minimum of 240 of full-width queueing area for an eastbound left-turn lane into the project site.

B) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be at least 400 east of the intersection of Slover Ave and Citrus Ave, as measured from the limit-line along westbound Slover Ave to the western edge of the driveway.

C) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be separated by at least 250 from adjacent driveways, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway.

D) Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns.

Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered.

E) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only.

F) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in, left-in, and right-out movements only.

G) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only.

H) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be restricted to vehicular access only, until such time as the adjacent land use is no longer deemed a sensitive receptor, or until such time that the distance between the driveway and the sensitive receptor is sufficiently large per the relevant state and local regulations.

I) Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation. 1033
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 11 ends

J) The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals K) All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turnaround space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public rightof-way in order to depart or turn-around.

L) The applicant shall design and construct any signal modifications needed to accommodate all project-implemented improvements.”
The MND also states that, "these measures are recommended to address Level of Service (LOS) or congestion-related impacts of the Project which are no longer considered environmental issues under CEQA. They are considered planning and engineering concerns since the Initial Study did not identify any significant traffic impacts related to the Project that require mitigation.” The MND provides verification that significant impacts will result to LOS and geometric designs/intersections due to implementation of the project. Additionally, the Site Plan provided in the MND has not been updated to reflect these requirements. An EIR must be prepared to provide a complete LOS analysis in order to demonstrate less than significant impacts for Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is not consistent with the following General Plan items:

1. Circulation Element Goal 5: Fontana s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and economic vitality.

2. Circulation Element Policy: Maintain levels of service for passenger vehicles, transit vehicles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians that are appropriate for the context of the area.

4.14 Population and Housing
The MND utilizes erroneous and misleading language to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts. For example, the MND states that, “The Project will be entirely light industrial, which is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site and surrounding area.” This statement is not true as the project requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed. The MND continues by stating that, “Therefore, the Project will increase future employment in the area consistent with the growth projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) now referred to as Connect SoCal” (SCAG 1034
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 12 ends

2020).” Since the project requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to proceed, it was not accounted for by the growth projections of the General Plan and its EIR, the AQMP, or SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to support this claim and an EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance.

The MND does not provide any calculation of the construction or operational employees generated by the proposed project. SCAG’s Employment Density Study18 provides the following applicable employment generation rates for San Bernardino County:
1 employee per 1,195 sf of warehouse area
1 employee per 697 sf of office area
Application of these ratios results in the following calculation:

Warehouse: 348,995 sf / 1,195 sf = 293 employees
Office: 7,000 square feet / 697 sf = 11 employees
Total: 304 employees
SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast19 notes that the City will add 18,400 jobs between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing the SCAG Employment Density calculation of 304 employees, the project represents 1.6% of the City s employment growth from 2016 - 2045.

SCAG’s Growth Forecast notes that the City’s population will increase by 75,700 residents between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing SCAG s Employment Density Study calculation of 304 employees and Fontana’s household size of 4 people20, the project will generate 1,216 residents; this represents 1.6% of the City s population growth from 2016 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment and/or population over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. A project EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis.

The MND does not provide any geographic information regarding the location of available workers to fill the project’s construction and operational jobs. The location of available workers can increase project VMT and therefore increase GHG emissions and Air Quality impacts. This 18 SCAG Employment Density Study
http://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D 19 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast adopted September 3, 2020 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growthforecast.pdf?1606001579 20 Fontana Demographic Information https://www.fontana.org/761/Business-Resources 1035
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 13 ends

information must be presented in an EIR in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

An EIR must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SCAG’s employment or population growth forecast for the City. For example, the 3,736,156 sf of warehousing proposed by the five recent Alere Realty projects (Citrus Commerce Center (3 industrial buildings totaling 1,830,000 sf), 16270 Jurupa Avenue (631,000 sf industrial building), 13032 Slover Avenue (672,000 sf industrial building), Master Case No. 20-049/Tentative Parcel Map No. 20235 (TPM No. 20-014), and Design Review No. 20-019 (247,786 sf industrial building)21, Fontana Corporate Center (355,370 sf industrial building), Sierra Business Center22 (510 employees), Citrus and Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue23 (595 employees), Cypress and Slover Warehouse24 (531 employees), Poplar South Distribution Center25 (411 employees), Hemlock Warehouse26 (763 employees), and Beech Avenue Logistics Center27 (151 employees) combined with the proposed project’s 304 employees, this brief list of recent industrial projects alone will generate 6,398 employees. This represents 34% of the City’s job growth over 29 years accounted for by only a brief list of recent industrial projects. This total increases exponentially when commercial development activity and other industrial projects are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis and also include a cumulative development analysis of projects approved since 2016 and projects in the pipeline” to determine if the proposed project exceeds SCAG’s growth forecasts and/or the buildout scenario and employment projections of the General Plan.

The MND also states that the “Project site is currently vacant with no housing or other related structures present,” to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts to population and housing. The MND excludes from analysis that the project site was developed with 15 single family dwellings. According to the City’s building permit data portal, building permits (BLD23- 002968 through BLD23-00298328) were issued to demolish all 15 existing residences on the site 21 Fontana Planning Commission August 17, 2021 Agenda Packet https://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=872341&GUID=A694AA6F-F236-4B53-B537- 025338533AF9
22 Sierra Business Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020100256/3 23 Citrus and Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022110389/2 24 Cypres and Slover Warehouse https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021120059/2 25 Poplar South Distribution Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090611/2 26 Hemlock Warehouse https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2009091089/8 27 Beech Avenue Logistics Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023110591 28 https://acaprod.accela.com/FONTANA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=22H IS&capID2=00000&capID3=07U4U&agencyCode=FONTANA&IsToShowInspection= 1036
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 14 ends

with a date of May 8, 2023. This is well after the proposed project was submitted to the City on August 29, 2022 and after environmental analysis commenced. The MND selectively chooses the status of the project site with each type of impact threshold in order to present artificially low impacts. An EIR must be prepared to provide this information for discussion and analysis.

4.17 Transportation
The MND improperly “screens out” the project from performing a project-specific VMT analysis.

Appendix H states that, “The proposed project is forecast to result in 498 net daily vehicle trips; therefore, the proposed project satisfies the City-established screening criteria for projects generating less than 500 net daily and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact,” in an effort to artificially appease the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines29 that exempts projects generating less than 500 ADT from providing a complete VMT analysis.

However, Appendix H and the MND leave out that Section 3.0 of the City s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines states that “industrial, warehousing and truck projects shall convert trucks to PCE s before applying the above threshold” in determining the ADT of projects. Appendix B of the TIA Guidelines also requires PCE to be utilized in VMT analysis. Table 1: Project Trip Generation within Appendix H states that the proposed project will generate 633 PCE trips daily.

Converting the 498 ADT to PCE indicates that the project exceeds the City’s VMT screening threshold of 500 ADT. Therefore, a project-specific VMT analysis analysis is required and must be included as part of an EIR.

Further, the VMT analysis has not analyzed the project’s truck/trailer/delivery van activity. An EIR must be prepared to include all truck/trailer/delivery van activity for quantified VMT analysis.

The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at the industrial building for work, they will conduct their jobs by driving truck/trailer/delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a high-cube warehouse facility, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity. 29 Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/35928/TIA-Guidelines---VMT-Assessment 1037
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 15 ends

The MND has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The MND lists the following “Traffic Conditions of Approval: After review of the proposed site plan, City staff recommended the following COAs in January 2024 to assure the project would not result in adverse traffic circulation or congestion-related conditions in the vicinity of the Project site:

C) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be separated by at least 250 from adjacent driveways, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway.

D) Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns.

Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered.

E) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only.

G) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only.

J) The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals 1038
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 16 ends

K) All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turnaround space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public rightof-way in order to depart or turn-around.

2. Circulation Element Policy: Maintain levels of service for passenger vehicles, transit vehicles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians that are appropriate for the context of the area.

The MND also states that, “Final Project site plans will be subject to review and approval by City planning and engineering staff, as well as police and fire personnel, who will ensure that site access and internal circulation are safe, have adequate sight distance, and driveway widths and stop signs are placed where necessary for entering and exiting the site.” The MND makes a similar statement regarding emergency access, stating that “Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space will have to be provided around the planned building for emergency personnel and equipment to access the entire site. All improvements will be required to comply with the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Section 9) in terms of emergency access to the new building.

Project site plans will be subject to review and approval by City planning and engineering staff, as well as police and fire personnel, who will ensure that site access and internal circulation are safe, have adequate sight distance, and driveway widths and stop signs are placed where necessary for entering and exiting the site,” without providing any meaningful evidence to support this claim. 1039
Irene Romero
March 18, 2024

Page 17 ends

This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. An EIR must be prepared to include the City determination/review of the project and the Site Plan for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The MND does not meaningfully discuss or analyze the project’s required land use designation changes (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) from Community Commercial to Light Industrial. This increases the developable industrial area of the City without providing any information or analysis on the buildout conditions of the General Plan. The growth generated by the proposed project was not anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. The MND is misleading to the public and decision makers in stating here that the project is, “consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations” when a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to implement the proposed project. An EIR must be prepared to provide an adequate informational document with this information for discussion and analysis.

An EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. The MND does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate cumulative analysis. An EIR must be prepared to provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SCAG s and/or the City s General Plan growth estimates for the City.

Page 18 ends

No. 20-014), and Design Review No. 20-019 (247,786 sf industrial building)30, Fontana Corporate Center (355,370 sf industrial building), Sierra Business Center31 (510 employees), Citrus and Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue32 (595 employees), Cypress and Slover Warehouse33 (531 employees), Poplar South Distribution Center34 (411 employees), Hemlock Warehouse35 (763 employees), and Beech Avenue Logistics Center36 (151 employees) combined with the proposed project’s 304 employees, this brief list of recent industrial projects alone will generate 6,398 employees. This represents 34% of the City’s job growth over 29 years accounted for by only a brief list of recent industrial projects. This total increases exponentially when commercial development activity and other industrial projects are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis and also include a cumulative development analysis of projects approved since 2016 and projects in the pipeline” to determine if the proposed project exceeds SCAG’s growth forecasts and/or the buildout scenario and employment projections of the General Plan.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877
Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
30 Fontana Planning Commission August 17, 2021 Agenda Packet https://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=872341&GUID=A694AA6F-F236-4B53-B537- 025338533AF9
31 Sierra Business Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020100256/3 32 Citrus and Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022110389/2 33 Cypres and Slover Warehouse https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021120059/2 34 Poplar South Distribution Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090611/2 35 Hemlock Warehouse https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2009091089/8 36 Beech Avenue Logistics Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023110591 Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis
1041
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 14, 2024
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024020971) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the February 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 355,995-square-feet (“SF”) of industrial space, including 7,000-SF of office space and 169 parking spaces, on the 17.39-acre site.

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

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). 1 CalEEMod 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 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
1042
2 can change the default values and input project-specific values, but 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 used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values.

According to the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report (“AQ & HRA Report”), included as Appendix A-1, and the Energy and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Report (“GHG Report”), included as Appendix A-2 to the IS/MND, CalEEMod Version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (IS/MND, p. 9). However, this poses a problem, as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files.2 Specifically, the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 197):

However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values (see example excerpt below):
2 “CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Soft Release.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2022, available at: https://caleemod.com/. 1043
3 The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the IS/MND should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.3 Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod.4 Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model’s analysis (p. 42). Regardless, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As such, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be 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.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project” model includes changes to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 197; Appendix A-2, pp. 169, 170).
3 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials. 4 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
1044
4 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Project would use super compliant paints to comply with the Fontana Municipal Code.” (Appendix A-1, pp. 151).

Furthermore, the Project relies on the Fontana General Plan Update ("Fontana GP"), which includes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113 concerning architectural coating values as a formal mitigation measure:
“MM-AQ-11 All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Specifically, the following measures shall be implemented, as feasible: Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule 1113” (Fontana GP, pp. 89)
However, the model’s reductions to the architectural coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated for two reasons.

First, we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required volatile organic compound (“VOC”) limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories.6 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 will be used. As the IS/MND fails to 5 “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 “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. 1045
5 explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, we are unable to verify the model’s revised coating emission factors.

Second, as previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, Table 5.5 contains the only mention of architectural coatings (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 153, 189; Appendix A-2, pp. 159, 160):

However, as demonstrated above, Table 5.5 only provides the square footage of area to be coated.

Since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. As previously stated, the IS/MND should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.7
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive VOC emissions.8 By including unsubstantiated reductions to
the default architectural coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Trips and VMT Parameters Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project” model includes changes to the construction trips and VMT values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 164, 197; Appendix A-2, pp. 170).
7 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials. 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. 35, 40.
1046
6 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 As demonstrated above, the justification provided in the “User Changes to Default Data” table is:
“Worker trips updated based on peak workers for each phase. Vendor trips updated based on 7,200 cubic yards of concrete.” (Appendix A-1, pp. 164, 197; Appendix A-2, pp. 170).

These changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND and associated documents fail to discuss the revisions to the construction trips and VMT values whatsoever. As previously discussed, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence.10 Until the Project documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the updated construction trips and VMT values, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the trips and VMT values to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.11 By including unsubstantiated changes to the construction trips and VMT values, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Fleet Mix Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project” model includes changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 164, 197; Appendix A-2, 169, 170).
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2, 9 10 “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. 11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 34.
1047
7 As previously stated, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.12 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Fleet mix updated based on traffic report” (Appendix A-1, pp. 164, 197; Appendix A-2, 169, 170).

Furthermore, the IS/MND includes the following Project Trip Generation table: (see excerpt below) (Appendix H-2, pp. 7)
However, the changes to the model’s operational fleet mix values remain unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, changes to fleet mix percentages are not mentioned outside of the “User Changes to Default Data” table. Until the IS/MND verifies the breakdown of heavy12 “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.
1048
8 heavy duty (“HHD”), medium-heavy duty (“MHD”), light-heavy duty (“LHD1, LDH2”), trucks used by the Project, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate.13 These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational vehicle fleet mix percentages to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.14 By including several unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reductions to Natural Gas Energy Use Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project” model includes changes to the default natural gas energy use values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 163, 164; Appendix A-2, pp. 169, 170).

As previously stated, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.15 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Project would all be electric. NG consumption converted to electricity at a rate of 3.41 kBTU per kWh” (Appendix A-1, pp. 163, 164).

As a result of these changes, the energy use table demonstrates the Project will not use any natural gas (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 155; Appendix A-2, pp. 161):
13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 38. 14 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36. 15 “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.
1049
9 However, review of the IS/MND states the Project would rely on natural gas (see excerpt below):
“The proposed Project would generate emissions from the combustion of natural gas in water and space heating equipment, as well as industrial processes.” (IS/MND, p. 40).

There is a clear discrepancy between the IS/MND and the “Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project” model. Until further clarification is provided in an EIR, the assumption that the Project would not require the use of natural gas is unsupported.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as the energy use values are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage. 16 By assuming that the Project would not rely on any natural gas utilities, the model may underestimate the Project’s 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 architectural coating values, construction trips and VMT values; we also omitted the incorrect changes operational fleet mix values and natural gas values.17 We matched all other input parameters to be consistent with the “Fontana Citrus Industrial building Project: Maximum Daily AG and Annual GHG (All Electric)” model.

Our updated analysis estimates that the volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions associated with Project construction exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 40) (see table below).
18 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
IS/MND
Construction
ROG
(lbs/day)
IS/MND 0.8
SWAPE 133.9
% Increase 16,638%
16 “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. 43. 17 See Attachment A for updated CalEEMod model. 18 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 1050
10 SCAQMD Threshold 75.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 16,638% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. Our updated modeling demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the IS/MND and associated documents, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts that warehouses pose to community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to SCAQMD:
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”19
In particular, the SCAQMD found that more than 2.4 million people live within a half mile radius of at least one warehouse, and that those areas not only experience increased rates of asthma and heart attacks, but are also disproportionately Black and Latino communities below the poverty line.20 Another study similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.”21 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary 19 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 20 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-targetwarehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 21 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21.
1051
11 disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollutionburdened areas ‘diesel death zones.’”22 It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health.

Fontana, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden compared to the rest of California. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 97th percentile of most polluted census tracts in the State (see excerpt below).23

Furthermore, the Data Visualization Tool for Mates V, a monitoring and evaluation study conducted by SCAQMD, demonstrates that the city already exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxins. Specifically, the location of the Project site is in the 80th percentile of highest cancer risks in the South Coast Air Basin, with a cancer risk of 465 in one million (see excerpt below).24 22 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 23 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), October 2021, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 24 “Residential Air Toxics Cancer Risk Calculated from Model Data in Grid Cells.” MATES V, 2018, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/Main-Page/?views=Click1052 12 Therefore, development of the proposed warehouse would contribute to the disproportionate impact warehouses are posing on the health conditions of the residents in Fontana.

In April 2022, the American Lung Association ranked San Bernadino County as the worst for ozone pollution in the nation.25 This year, the County continues to face the worst ozone pollution, as it has seen the highest recorded Air Quality Index (“AQI”) values for ground-level ozone in California.26 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.”27 tabs-for-other-data%2CGridded-Cancer-Risk; see also: “MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study.” SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v. 25 “State of the Air 2022.” American Lung Association, April 2022, available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings/most-polluted-places. 26 “High Ozone Days.” American Lung Association, 2022, available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/california. 27 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. 1053
13 Furthermore, regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:
• Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution. • Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk.
• Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.”28 A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.29 Given children’s higher propensity to succumb to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and as warehouses release more smogforming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.

According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, there are 640 schools in the South Coast Air Basin that are located within half a mile of a large warehouse, most of them in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.30 Regarding the proposed Project itself, the IS/MND states:
“The sensitive air quality receptors in proximity of the proposed Project site are:
• Jurupa Hills High School approximately 700 feet south of the site; 28 “Children and Air Pollution.” California Air Resources Board (CARB), available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-air-pollution. 29 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrenshealth/. 30 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 1054
14 • Fontana Adult School approximately 1,380 feet southeast of the site on Oleander Avenue; and
• Citrus High School approximately 1,620 feet southeast of the site on Cyprus Avenue, adjacent to the Fontana Adult School.” (p. 47)”
As demonstrated above, the Jurupa Hills High school is located approximately 700 feet, or 0.13 miles, from the Project site; the Fontana Adult School is located 1,380 feet, or 0.26 miles, from the Project site; and the Citrus High School is located 1,620 feet, or 0.31 miles, from the Project site. Therefore, there are three schools within an approximately 0.5-mile radius of the Project. This poses a significant threat because, as outlined above, children are a vulnerable population that are more susceptible to the damaging side effects of air pollution. As such, the Project would contribute to detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts that warehouses pose on local children if approved.

An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s contribution to the disproportionate impacts that warehouses pose on the surrounding communities, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. In order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the analysis should prepare a revised cumulative health risk analysis (“HRA”) to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. This recommendation is consistent with guidance provided by the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”).31 Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction and operational HRA, as detailed in the HRA Report.

Specifically, the HRA Report estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with construction and operation would be 0.8 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (Appendix A-1, p. 55, Table 4.3-6).
31 “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. 6. 1055
15 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 two reasons.

First, the IS/MND’s HRAs are unreliable, as they rely upon emissions estimates from a flawed air model, as discussed above in the section titled “Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions.” As such, the HRAs are based on potentially underestimated DPM concentrations to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. As a result, the IS/MND’s HRAs and resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Second, the IS/MND’s operational HRA underestimates the Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) values for the third trimester, infant, and child receptors. Specifically, the HRA Report utilizes an FAH value of 0.85 for the third trimester (age -0.25 to 0) and infant (age 0 to 2) receptors, and an FAH value of 0.72 for the child receptors (age 2 to 16) (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 1427).

However, the FAH values used for the third trimester, infant, and childhood receptors are incorrect, as SCAQMD guidance clearly states:
“For Tiers 1, 2, and 3 screening purposes, the FAH is assumed to be 1 for ages third trimester to

16. As a default, children are assumed to attend a daycare or school in close proximity to their home and no discount should be taken for time spent outside of the area affected by the 1056
16 facility’s emissions. People older than age 16 are assumed to spend only 73 percent of their time at home.”32
Per SCAQMD guidance, the HRA Report should have used an FAH of 1 for the third trimester, infant, and child receptors. By relying on incorrect FAH values, the IS/MND underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project operation. An updated HRA should be prepared that accurately accounts for FAH values, and consequently assesses the health risk impacts the Project poses to nearby sensitive receptors.

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 2,464.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (see excerpt below) (Appendix H-2, p. 6-5, Table 6-3).
32 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 1057
17 As such, the IS/MND concludes:
“As shown in Table 6-3, the proposed Project’s potential increase in GHG emissions would be approximately 2,465 MTCO2e, which would be below 3,000 MTCO2e threshold employed by the City for evaluating the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions” (Appendix H-2, p. 6-5).

However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons:
(1) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. 1058
18 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 2,464.5 MT CO2e/year (Appendix H-2, p. 6-5, Table 6-3). However, the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod models, provided in the AQ & HRA Report and GHG Report, 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 2,464.5 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 49). 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 2020.33 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.”34
As it is currently March 2024, 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 apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.35
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 GHG Analysis, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT 33 “Health & Safety Code 38550.” California State Legislature, January 2007, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 34 “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. 35 “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. 1059
19 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 2,464.5MT CO2e/year (p. 49, Table 10). 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.”36 According to the Employment Density Study Summary Report completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), the project would support approximately 297 employees.37, 38 As the project is not expected to support any residential land uses, we estimate an SP of 297 people. When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by an SP of 297 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 8.3 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).39
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 2,464.5
Service Population 297
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 8.3
SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value 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.

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. In an effort to reduce emissions, the Project should 36 “CEQA & Climate Change.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), January 2008, available at: https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/CAPCOA-CEQA-and-Climate-Change.pdf., p. 71-72. 37 Calculated: (355,000 -SF warehouse) / (1,195-SF average per one warehouse employee in San Bernardino County) = 297.1 employees. 38 “Employment Density Study Summary Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 2001, available at: https://docplayer.net/30300085-Employment-density-study-summary-report-october-31- prepared-for-southern-california-association-of-governments.html, p. 4. 39 Calculated: (2,464.5 MT CO2e/year) / (297 service population) = (8.3 MT CO2e/SP/year). 1060
20 consider the implementation of the following mitigation measures found in the California DOJ Warehouse Project Best Practices document.40
• 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. • 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.
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. 1061
21 • 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. • 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. 1062
22 • 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.

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 that the energy mix that will charge the batteries and power electrical equipment must be 100% renewable energy resources. Until the feasibility of charging the batteries with renewable energy resources only is evaluated, 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 the maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was 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.
1063
23 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: SWAPE's CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment C: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1064
Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.50 1000sqft 0.13 5,500.00 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 355.00 1000sqft 8.15 355,000.00 0 Parking Lot 110.00 Space 7.85 86.11 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment A
1065
Trips and VMT - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Trips and VMT Input Parameters".

Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Architectural Coating - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors".

Energy Use - See comment on: "Incorrect Changes to Natural Gas Values".

Fleet Mix - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Fleet Mix Percentages".

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 25.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 160.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 44,000.00 86.11
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1066

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.99 7.85
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 534.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 77.27
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 77.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 77.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1067

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
2024 0.2642 2.2033 2.5368 5.9600e0030.4374 0.0895 0.5269 0.1566 0.0835 0.2401 0.0000 534.3742 534.3742 0.0940 0.0181 542.1028 2025 1.6742 0.0151 0.0331 7.0000e0054.1100e0036.6000e0044.7700e0031.0900e0036.6000e0041.7500e0030.0000 6.1661 6.1661 2.4000e0048.0000e0056.1945 Maximum 1.6742 2.2033 2.5368 5.9600e0030.4374 0.0895 0.5269 0.1566 0.0835 0.2401 0.0000 534.3742 534.3742 0.0940 0.0181 542.1028 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
2024 0.2642 2.2033 2.5368 5.9600e0030.4374 0.0895 0.5269 0.1566 0.0835 0.2401 0.0000 534.3738 534.3738 0.0940 0.0181 542.1024 2025 1.6742 0.0151 0.0331 7.0000e0054.1100e0036.6000e0044.7700e0031.0900e0036.6000e0041.7500e0030.0000 6.1661 6.1661 2.4000e0048.0000e0056.1945 Maximum 1.6742 2.2033 2.5368 5.9600e0030.4374 0.0895 0.5269 0.1566 0.0835 0.2401 0.0000 534.3738 534.3738 0.0940 0.0181 542.1024 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1068
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 1.0034 1.0034
2 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 0.6461 0.6461
3 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 0.5893 0.5893
4 10-1-2024 12-31-2024 0.2062 0.2062
6 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 0.0965 0.0965
7 7-1-2025 9-30-2025 1.5445 1.5445
Highest 1.5445 1.5445
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1069

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 1.4703 5.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Energy 3.9500e0030.0359 0.0302 2.2000e0042.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0030.0000 39.0845 39.0845 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.3167 Mobile 0.2498 0.3948 2.6056 5.9600e0030.6453 4.7400e0030.6500 0.1724 4.4400e0030.1768 0.0000 551.6889 551.6889 0.0311 0.0277 560.7271 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 68.7774 0.0000 68.7774 4.0646 0.0000 170.3931 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.3547 0.0000 26.3547 2.7069 0.0639 113.0734 Total 1.7240 0.4307 2.6418 6.1800e0030.6453 7.4900e0030.6528 0.1724 7.1900e0030.1795 95.1321 590.7850 685.9171 6.8034 0.0924 883.5227 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1070

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1071
4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/23/2024 11/1/2024 5 160 5 Paving Paving 6/15/2024 6/28/2024 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/29/2025 8/1/2025 5 25 7 Trenching Trenching 3/23/2024 6/14/2024 5 60
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 540,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,250; Striped Parking Area: 5 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90
Acres of Paving: 7.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1072

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 235.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 534.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 151.00 59.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1073

3.2 Demolition - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0255 0.0000 0.0255 3.8600e0030.0000 3.8600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0224 0.2088 0.1971 3.9000e0049.6000e0039.6000e0038.9200e0038.9200e0030.0000 33.9961 33.9961 9.5100e0030.0000 34.2338 Total 0.0224 0.2088 0.1971 3.9000e0040.0255 9.6000e0030.0351 3.8600e0038.9200e0030.0128 0.0000 33.9961 33.9961 9.5100e0030.0000 34.2338 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 2.7000e0040.0137 3.9800e0036.0000e0052.0200e0031.3000e0042.1600e0035.6000e0041.3000e0046.8000e0040.0000 6.4162 6.4162 2.7000e0041.0200e0036.7260 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.9000e0043.5000e0044.5300e0031.0000e0051.6400e0031.0000e0051.6500e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.4000e0040.0000 1.2318 1.2318 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2422 Total 7.6000e0040.0141 8.5100e0037.0000e0053.6600e0031.4000e0043.8100e0031.0000e0031.4000e0041.1200e0030.0000 7.6480 7.6480 3.0000e0041.0500e0037.9682 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1074

3.2 Demolition - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0255 0.0000 0.0255 3.8600e0030.0000 3.8600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0224 0.2088 0.1971 3.9000e0049.6000e0039.6000e0038.9200e0038.9200e0030.0000 33.9960 33.9960 9.5100e0030.0000 34.2338 Total 0.0224 0.2088 0.1971 3.9000e0040.0255 9.6000e0030.0351 3.8600e0038.9200e0030.0128 0.0000 33.9960 33.9960 9.5100e0030.0000 34.2338 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 2.7000e0040.0137 3.9800e0036.0000e0052.0200e0031.3000e0042.1600e0035.6000e0041.3000e0046.8000e0040.0000 6.4162 6.4162 2.7000e0041.0200e0036.7260 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.9000e0043.5000e0044.5300e0031.0000e0051.6400e0031.0000e0051.6500e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.4000e0040.0000 1.2318 1.2318 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2422 Total 7.6000e0040.0141 8.5100e0037.0000e0053.6600e0031.4000e0043.8100e0031.0000e0031.4000e0041.1200e0030.0000 7.6480 7.6480 3.0000e0041.0500e0037.9682 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1075

3.3 Site Preparation - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6600e0035.6600e0030.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Total 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0040.0983 6.1500e0030.1044 0.0505 5.6600e0030.0562 0.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 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 2.9000e0042.1000e0042.7200e0031.0000e0059.9000e0040.0000 9.9000e0042.6000e0040.0000 2.7000e0040.0000 0.7391 0.7391 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7453 Total 2.9000e0042.1000e0042.7200e0031.0000e0059.9000e0040.0000 9.9000e0042.6000e0040.0000 2.7000e0040.0000 0.7391 0.7391 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7453 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1076

3.3 Site Preparation - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6500e0035.6500e0030.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Total 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0040.0983 6.1500e0030.1044 0.0505 5.6500e0030.0562 0.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 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 2.9000e0042.1000e0042.7200e0031.0000e0059.9000e0040.0000 9.9000e0042.6000e0040.0000 2.7000e0040.0000 0.7391 0.7391 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7453 Total 2.9000e0042.1000e0042.7200e0031.0000e0059.9000e0040.0000 9.9000e0042.6000e0040.0000 2.7000e0040.0000 0.7391 0.7391 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7453 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1077

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.1381 0.0000 0.1381 0.0548 0.0000 0.0548 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0483 0.4857 0.4158 9.3000e0040.0200 0.0200 0.0184 0.0184 0.0000 81.7793 81.7793 0.0265 0.0000 82.4405 Total 0.0483 0.4857 0.4158 9.3000e0040.1381 0.0200 0.1581 0.0548 0.0184 0.0732 0.0000 81.7793 81.7793 0.0265 0.0000 82.4405 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 6.2000e0040.0312 9.0300e0031.5000e0044.6000e0033.1000e0044.9000e0031.2600e0032.9000e0041.5500e0030.0000 14.5797 14.5797 6.1000e0042.3100e00315.2837 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e0046.9000e0049.0600e0033.0000e0053.2900e0032.0000e0053.3100e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.4636 2.4636 6.0000e0056.0000e0052.4844 Total 1.5900e0030.0319 0.0181 1.8000e0047.8900e0033.3000e0048.2100e0032.1300e0033.0000e0042.4400e0030.0000 17.0433 17.0433 6.7000e0042.3700e00317.7681 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1078

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.1381 0.0000 0.1381 0.0548 0.0000 0.0548 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0483 0.4857 0.4158 9.3000e0040.0200 0.0200 0.0184 0.0184 0.0000 81.7792 81.7792 0.0265 0.0000 82.4404 Total 0.0483 0.4857 0.4158 9.3000e0040.1381 0.0200 0.1581 0.0548 0.0184 0.0732 0.0000 81.7792 81.7792 0.0265 0.0000 82.4404 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 6.2000e0040.0312 9.0300e0031.5000e0044.6000e0033.1000e0044.9000e0031.2600e0032.9000e0041.5500e0030.0000 14.5797 14.5797 6.1000e0042.3100e00315.2837 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e0046.9000e0049.0600e0033.0000e0053.2900e0032.0000e0053.3100e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.4636 2.4636 6.0000e0056.0000e0052.4844 Total 1.5900e0030.0319 0.0181 1.8000e0047.8900e0033.3000e0048.2100e0032.1300e0033.0000e0042.4400e0030.0000 17.0433 17.0433 6.7000e0042.3700e00317.7681 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1079

3.5 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 0.1177 1.0755 1.2934 2.1600e0030.0491 0.0491 0.0462 0.0462 0.0000 185.4793 185.4793 0.0439 0.0000 186.5758 Total 0.1177 1.0755 1.2934 2.1600e0030.0491 0.0491 0.0462 0.0462 0.0000 185.4793 185.4793 0.0439 0.0000 186.5758 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 5.2000e0030.1757 0.0693 8.3000e0040.0298 1.2300e0030.0310 8.5900e0031.1700e0039.7700e0030.0000 81.1290 81.1290 2.0800e0030.0120 84.7531 Worker 0.0391 0.0278 0.3648 1.0800e0030.1325 6.4000e0040.1331 0.0352 5.9000e0040.0358 0.0000 99.2025 99.2025 2.4600e0032.6000e003100.0389 Total 0.0443 0.2035 0.4341 1.9100e0030.1622 1.8700e0030.1641 0.0438 1.7600e0030.0455 0.0000 180.3315 180.3315 4.5400e0030.0146 184.7920 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1080

3.5 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 0.1177 1.0755 1.2933 2.1600e0030.0491 0.0491 0.0462 0.0462 0.0000 185.4791 185.4791 0.0439 0.0000 186.5756 Total 0.1177 1.0755 1.2933 2.1600e0030.0491 0.0491 0.0462 0.0462 0.0000 185.4791 185.4791 0.0439 0.0000 186.5756 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 5.2000e0030.1757 0.0693 8.3000e0040.0298 1.2300e0030.0310 8.5900e0031.1700e0039.7700e0030.0000 81.1290 81.1290 2.0800e0030.0120 84.7531 Worker 0.0391 0.0278 0.3648 1.0800e0030.1325 6.4000e0040.1331 0.0352 5.9000e0040.0358 0.0000 99.2025 99.2025 2.4600e0032.6000e003100.0389 Total 0.0443 0.2035 0.4341 1.9100e0030.1622 1.8700e0030.1641 0.0438 1.7600e0030.0455 0.0000 180.3315 180.3315 4.5400e0030.0146 184.7920 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1081

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.9400e0030.0476 0.0731 1.1000e0042.3400e0032.3400e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 10.0133 10.0133 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0942 Paving 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0152 0.0476 0.0731 1.1000e0042.3400e0032.3400e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 10.0133 10.0133 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0942 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 2.4000e0041.7000e0042.2600e0031.0000e0058.2000e0040.0000 8.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6159 0.6159 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6211 Total 2.4000e0041.7000e0042.2600e0031.0000e0058.2000e0040.0000 8.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6159 0.6159 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6211 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1082

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.9400e0030.0476 0.0731 1.1000e0042.3400e0032.3400e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 10.0133 10.0133 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0942 Paving 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0152 0.0476 0.0731 1.1000e0042.3400e0032.3400e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 10.0133 10.0133 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0942 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 2.4000e0041.7000e0042.2600e0031.0000e0058.2000e0040.0000 8.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6159 0.6159 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6211 Total 2.4000e0041.7000e0042.2600e0031.0000e0058.2000e0040.0000 8.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6159 0.6159 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6211 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1083

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.6709 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1400e0030.0143 0.0226 4.0000e0056.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0040.0000 3.1916 3.1916 1.7000e0040.0000 3.1959 Total 1.6731 0.0143 0.0226 4.0000e0056.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0040.0000 3.1916 3.1916 1.7000e0040.0000 3.1959 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 1.1300e0037.7000e0040.0105 3.0000e0054.1100e0032.0000e0054.1300e0031.0900e0032.0000e0051.1100e0030.0000 2.9745 2.9745 7.0000e0058.0000e0052.9986 Total 1.1300e0037.7000e0040.0105 3.0000e0054.1100e0032.0000e0054.1300e0031.0900e0032.0000e0051.1100e0030.0000 2.9745 2.9745 7.0000e0058.0000e0052.9986 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1084

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.6709 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1400e0030.0143 0.0226 4.0000e0056.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0040.0000 3.1916 3.1916 1.7000e0040.0000 3.1959 Total 1.6731 0.0143 0.0226 4.0000e0056.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0046.4000e0040.0000 3.1916 3.1916 1.7000e0040.0000 3.1959 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 1.1300e0037.7000e0040.0105 3.0000e0054.1100e0032.0000e0054.1300e0031.0900e0032.0000e0051.1100e0030.0000 2.9745 2.9745 7.0000e0058.0000e0052.9986 Total 1.1300e0037.7000e0040.0105 3.0000e0054.1100e0032.0000e0054.1300e0031.0900e0032.0000e0051.1100e0030.0000 2.9745 2.9745 7.0000e0058.0000e0052.9986 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1085

3.8 Trenching - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1086

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1087
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.2498 0.3948 2.6056 5.9600e0030.6453 4.7400e0030.6500 0.1724 4.4400e0030.1768 0.0000 551.6889 551.6889 0.0311 0.0277 560.7271 Unmitigated 0.2498 0.3948 2.6056 5.9600e0030.6453 4.7400e0030.6500 0.1724 4.4400e0030.1768 0.0000 551.6889 551.6889 0.0311 0.0277 560.7271

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
General Office Building 424.99 424.99 424.99 1,369,073 1,369,073 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 79.88 79.88 79.88 342,322 342,322 Total 504.86 504.86 504.86 1,711,394 1,711,394
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 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 Parking Lot 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1088
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606

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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

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

3.9500e0030.0359 0.0302 2.2000e0042.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0030.0000 39.0845 39.0845 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.3167 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.9500e0030.0359 0.0302 2.2000e0042.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0030.0000 39.0845 39.0845 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.3167

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1089

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
General Office
Building
18865 1.0000e0049.2000e0047.8000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 1.0067 1.0067 2.0000e0052.0000e0051.0127 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
713550 3.8500e0030.0350 0.0294 2.1000e0042.6600e0032.6600e0032.6600e0032.6600e0030.0000 38.0778 38.0778 7.3000e0047.0000e00438.3040 Total 3.9500e0030.0359 0.0302 2.2000e0042.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0030.0000 39.0845 39.0845 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.3167 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1090

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
General Office
Building
18865 1.0000e0049.2000e0047.8000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 1.0067 1.0067 2.0000e0052.0000e0051.0127 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
713550 3.8500e0030.0350 0.0294 2.1000e0042.6600e0032.6600e0032.6600e0032.6600e0030.0000 38.0778 38.0778 7.3000e0047.0000e00438.3040 Total 3.9500e0030.0359 0.0302 2.2000e0042.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0032.7300e0030.0000 39.0845 39.0845 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.3167 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1091

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
50545 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 30.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
823600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1093
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.4703 5.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Unmitigated 1.4703 5.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124

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

0.1671 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.3027 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.5000e0045.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Total 1.4703 5.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1094

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1671 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.3027 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.5000e0045.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Total 1.4703 5.0000e0055.9900e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0117 0.0117 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0124 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1095
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 26.3547 2.7069 0.0639 113.0734
Unmitigated 26.3547 2.7069 0.0639 113.0734

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.977536 /

0.599135

0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e0041.3306
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

82.0938 /
0 26.0446 2.6750 0.0632 111.7428
Total 26.3547 2.7069 0.0639 113.0734
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1096

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.977536 /

0.599135

0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e0041.3306
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

82.0938 /
0 26.0446 2.6750 0.0632 111.7428
Total 26.3547 2.7069 0.0639 113.0734
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1097
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 68.7774 4.0646 0.0000 170.3931
Unmitigated 68.7774 4.0646 0.0000 170.3931
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.12 1.0393 0.0614 0.0000 2.5749
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
333.7 67.7381 4.0032 0.0000 167.8182
Total 68.7774 4.0646 0.0000 170.3931
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1098

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.12 1.0393 0.0614 0.0000 2.5749
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
333.7 67.7381 4.0032 0.0000 167.8182
Total 68.7774 4.0646 0.0000 170.3931
Mitigated

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

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 36 Date: 3/14/2024 10:04 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1100
Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1101
Trips and VMT - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Trips and VMT Input Parameters".

Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Architectural Coating - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors".

Energy Use - See comment on: "Incorrect Changes to Natural Gas Values".

Fleet Mix - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Fleet Mix Percentages".

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 25.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 160.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 44,000.00 86.11
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1102

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.99 7.85
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 534.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 77.27
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 77.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 77.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1103

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
2024 5.1863 34.3831 37.4506 0.0763 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,506.046 3 7,506.046
3 1.9932 0.2019 7,600.791
1 2025 133.9465 1.2015 2.7808 5.7800e0030.3353 0.0530 0.3883 0.0889 0.0529 0.1418 0.0000 565.2404 565.2404 0.0213 6.2200e003567.6264 Maximum 133.9465 34.3831 37.4506 0.0763 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,506.046 3 7,506.046
3 1.9932 0.2019 7,600.791
1 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
2024 5.1863 34.3831 37.4506 0.0763 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,506.046 3 7,506.046
3 1.9932 0.2019 7,600.791
1 2025 133.9465 1.2015 2.7808 5.7800e0030.3353 0.0530 0.3883 0.0889 0.0529 0.1418 0.0000 565.2404 565.2404 0.0213 6.2200e003567.6264 Maximum 133.9465 34.3831 37.4506 0.0763 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,506.046 3 7,506.046
3 1.9932 0.2019 7,600.791
1 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1104
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1105

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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Energy 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mobile 1.5879 2.0025 15.3592 0.0348 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,550.794 0 3,550.794
0 0.1823 0.1617 3,603.548
9 Total 9.6675 2.1996 15.5724 0.0360 3.6135 0.0412 3.6547 0.9637 0.0395 1.0033 3,786.969 5 3,786.969
5 0.1871 0.1661 3,841.134
0 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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Energy 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mobile 1.5879 2.0025 15.3592 0.0348 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,550.794 0 3,550.794
0 0.1823 0.1617 3,603.548
9 Total 9.6675 2.1996 15.5724 0.0360 3.6135 0.0412 3.6547 0.9637 0.0395 1.0033 3,786.969 5 3,786.969
5 0.1871 0.1661 3,841.134
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1106

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 1/26/2024 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2024 2/9/2024 5 10 3 Grading Grading 2/10/2024 3/22/2024 5 30
4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/23/2024 11/1/2024 5 160 5 Paving Paving 6/15/2024 6/28/2024 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/29/2025 8/1/2025 5 25 7 Trenching Trenching 3/23/2024 6/14/2024 5 60
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
ROG NOx 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: 540,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,250; Striped Parking Area: 5 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90
Acres of Paving: 7.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1107

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 235.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 534.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 151.00 59.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1108

3.2 Demolition - 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
Fugitive Dust 2.5472 0.0000 2.5472 0.3857 0.0000 0.3857 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 2.5472 0.9602 3.5074 0.3857 0.8922 1.2779 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1109

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0281 1.2966 0.3946 6.4900e0030.2058 0.0134 0.2192 0.0564 0.0128 0.0693 706.8088 706.8088 0.0298 0.1120 740.9383 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0544 0.0314 0.5245 1.4500e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 146.9351 146.9351 3.3100e0033.3400e003148.0134 Total 0.0825 1.3280 0.9191 7.9400e0030.3734 0.0142 0.3876 0.1009 0.0136 0.1144 853.7439 853.7439 0.0331 0.1154 888.9516 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.5472 0.0000 2.5472 0.3857 0.0000 0.3857 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 2.5472 0.9602 3.5074 0.3857 0.8922 1.2779 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1110

3.3 Site Preparation - 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
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 19.6570 1.2294 20.8864 10.1025 1.1310 11.2335 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1111

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0653 0.0377 0.6294 1.7400e0030.2012 9.5000e0040.2022 0.0534 8.7000e0040.0542 176.3221 176.3221 3.9700e0034.0100e003177.6160 Total 0.0653 0.0377 0.6294 1.7400e0030.2012 9.5000e0040.2022 0.0534 8.7000e0040.0542 176.3221 176.3221 3.9700e0034.0100e003177.6160 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 19.6570 1.2294 20.8864 10.1025 1.1310 11.2335 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1112

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 1.3354 1.3354 1.2286 1.2286 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 9.2036 1.3354 10.5390 3.6538 1.2286 4.8823 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1113

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0425 1.9643 0.5978 9.8300e0030.3117 0.0203 0.3320 0.0855 0.0194 0.1049 1,070.740 1 1,070.740
1 0.0452 0.1697 1,122.442
7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0726 0.0418 0.6993 1.9400e0030.2236 1.0600e0030.2246 0.0593 9.7000e0040.0603 195.9134 195.9134 4.4200e0034.4500e003197.3512 Total 0.1151 2.0061 1.2971 0.0118 0.5353 0.0214 0.5566 0.1448 0.0204 0.1652 1,266.653 5 1,266.653
5 0.0496 0.1742 1,319.793
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 1.3354 1.3354 1.2286 1.2286 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 9.2036 1.3354 10.5390 3.6538 1.2286 4.8823 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1114

3.5 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1115

3.5 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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0675 2.0879 0.8539 0.0104 0.3780 0.0153 0.3933 0.1088 0.0147 0.1235 1,116.718 8 1,116.718
8 0.0287 0.1649 1,166.572
6 Worker 0.5479 0.3159 5.2796 0.0146 1.6878 7.9700e0031.6958 0.4476 7.3400e0030.4550 1,479.146 4 1,479.146
4 0.0333 0.0336 1,490.001
2 Total 0.6154 2.4038 6.1336 0.0250 2.0658 0.0233 2.0891 0.5565 0.0220 0.5785 2,595.865 2 2,595.865
2 0.0620 0.1985 2,656.573
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1116

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 2.0567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0449 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1117

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0544 0.0314 0.5245 1.4500e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 146.9351 146.9351 3.3100e0033.3400e003148.0134 Total 0.0544 0.0314 0.5245 1.4500e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 146.9351 146.9351 3.3100e0033.3400e003148.0134 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 2.0567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0449 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1118

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 133.6743 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 133.8452 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1119

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1013 0.0560 0.9717 2.8100e0030.3353 1.5000e0030.3368 0.0889 1.3800e0030.0903 283.7924 283.7924 5.9500e0036.2200e003285.7945 Total 0.1013 0.0560 0.9717 2.8100e0030.3353 1.5000e0030.3368 0.0889 1.3800e0030.0903 283.7924 283.7924 5.9500e0036.2200e003285.7945 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 133.6743 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 133.8452 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1120

3.8 Trenching - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1122

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1123
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.5879 2.0025 15.3592 0.0348 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,550.794 0 3,550.794
0 0.1823 0.1617 3,603.548
9 Unmitigated 1.5879 2.0025 15.3592 0.0348 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,550.794 0 3,550.794
0 0.1823 0.1617 3,603.548
9 4.2 Trip Summary Information

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 Parking Lot 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1124
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606

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

0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1125

51.6849 5.6000e0045.0700e0034.2600e0033.0000e0053.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0046.0806 6.0806 1.2000e0041.1000e0046.1167 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1954.93 0.0211 0.1917 0.1610 1.1500e0030.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 229.9919 229.9919 4.4100e0034.2200e003231.3587 Total 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5300e0034.3300e003237.4754 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1126

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.0516849 5.6000e0045.0700e0034.2600e0033.0000e0053.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0046.0806 6.0806 1.2000e0041.1000e0046.1167 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.95493 0.0211 0.1917 0.1610 1.1500e0030.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 229.9919 229.9919 4.4100e0034.2200e003231.3587 Total 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5300e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1127
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Unmitigated 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097

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

0.9156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.1379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.4100e0034.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Total 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1128

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.9156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.1379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.4100e0034.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Total 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1129

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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 30 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:06 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1130
Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1131
Trips and VMT - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Trips and VMT Input Parameters".

Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Architectural Coating - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors".

Energy Use - See comment on: "Incorrect Changes to Natural Gas Values".

Fleet Mix - See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Fleet Mix Percentages".

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

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

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 25.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 160.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 44,000.00 86.11
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1132

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.99 7.85
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 534.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 77.27
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 77.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.23
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 77.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1133

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
2024 5.1608 34.4915 36.4555 0.0748 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,356.218 2 7,356.218
2 1.9931 0.2036 7,451.461
7 2025 133.9432 1.2043 2.6108 5.5100e0030.3353 0.0530 0.3883 0.0889 0.0529 0.1418 0.0000 538.6785 538.6785 0.0213 6.4200e003541.1238 Maximum 133.9432 34.4915 36.4555 0.0748 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,356.218 2 7,356.218
2 1.9931 0.2036 7,451.461
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
2024 5.1608 34.4915 36.4555 0.0748 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,356.218 2 7,356.218
2 1.9931 0.2036 7,451.461
7 2025 133.9432 1.2043 2.6108 5.5100e0030.3353 0.0530 0.3883 0.0889 0.0529 0.1418 0.0000 538.6785 538.6785 0.0213 6.4200e003541.1238 Maximum 133.9432 34.4915 36.4555 0.0748 19.8582 1.3568 21.0885 10.1558 1.2490 11.2877 0.0000 7,356.218 2 7,356.218
2 1.9931 0.2036 7,451.461
7 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1134
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1135

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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Energy 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mobile 1.3825 2.1278 13.7484 0.0323 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,296.754 2 3,296.754
2 0.1866 0.1657 3,350.796
1 Total 9.4621 2.3250 13.9616 0.0335 3.6135 0.0412 3.6547 0.9637 0.0396 1.0033 3,532.929 7 3,532.929
7 0.1914 0.1700 3,588.381
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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Energy 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mobile 1.3825 2.1278 13.7484 0.0323 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,296.754 2 3,296.754
2 0.1866 0.1657 3,350.796
1 Total 9.4621 2.3250 13.9616 0.0335 3.6135 0.0412 3.6547 0.9637 0.0396 1.0033 3,532.929 7 3,532.929
7 0.1914 0.1700 3,588.381
1 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1136

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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: 540,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,250; Striped Parking Area: 5 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90
Acres of Paving: 7.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1137

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 235.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 534.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 151.00 59.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1138

3.2 Demolition - 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
Fugitive Dust 2.5472 0.0000 2.5472 0.3857 0.0000 0.3857 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 2.5472 0.9602 3.5074 0.3857 0.8922 1.2779 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1139

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0259 1.3668 0.4017 6.5000e0030.2058 0.0134 0.2192 0.0564 0.0129 0.0693 707.8832 707.8832 0.0297 0.1122 742.0607 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0330 0.4321 1.3200e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 133.1498 133.1498 3.3200e0033.4500e003134.2600 Total 0.0785 1.3998 0.8338 7.8200e0030.3734 0.0142 0.3877 0.1009 0.0136 0.1145 841.0330 841.0330 0.0330 0.1157 876.3206 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.5472 0.0000 2.5472 0.3857 0.0000 0.3857 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 2.5472 0.9602 3.5074 0.3857 0.8922 1.2779 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1140

3.3 Site Preparation - 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
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 19.6570 1.2294 20.8864 10.1025 1.1310 11.2335 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1141

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0631 0.0396 0.5186 1.5800e0030.2012 9.5000e0040.2022 0.0534 8.7000e0040.0542 159.7797 159.7797 3.9900e0034.1400e003161.1120 Total 0.0631 0.0396 0.5186 1.5800e0030.2012 9.5000e0040.2022 0.0534 8.7000e0040.0542 159.7797 159.7797 3.9900e0034.1400e003161.1120 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 19.6570 1.2294 20.8864 10.1025 1.1310 11.2335 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1142

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 1.3354 1.3354 1.2286 1.2286 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 9.2036 1.3354 10.5390 3.6538 1.2286 4.8823 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1143

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0393 2.0706 0.6085 9.8400e0030.3117 0.0204 0.3321 0.0855 0.0195 0.1049 1,072.367 7 1,072.367
7 0.0450 0.1700 1,124.143
0 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0701 0.0440 0.5762 1.7600e0030.2236 1.0600e0030.2246 0.0593 9.7000e0040.0603 177.5330 177.5330 4.4300e0034.6000e003179.0133 Total 0.1094 2.1146 1.1847 0.0116 0.5353 0.0214 0.5567 0.1448 0.0204 0.1652 1,249.900 8 1,249.900
8 0.0494 0.1746 1,303.156
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 1.3354 1.3354 1.2286 1.2286 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 9.2036 1.3354 10.5390 3.6538 1.2286 4.8823 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1144

3.5 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1145

3.5 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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0626 2.2051 0.8805 0.0104 0.3780 0.0154 0.3934 0.1088 0.0147 0.1236 1,119.448 1 1,119.448
1 0.0285 0.1654 1,169.447
3 Worker 0.5291 0.3320 4.3503 0.0133 1.6878 7.9700e0031.6958 0.4476 7.3400e0030.4550 1,340.374 2 1,340.374
2 0.0334 0.0347 1,351.550
4 Total 0.5918 2.5371 5.2308 0.0237 2.0658 0.0233 2.0892 0.5565 0.0221 0.5785 2,459.822 3 2,459.822
3 0.0619 0.2001 2,520.997
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1146

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 2.0567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0449 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1147

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0330 0.4321 1.3200e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 133.1498 133.1498 3.3200e0033.4500e003134.2600 Total 0.0526 0.0330 0.4321 1.3200e0030.1677 7.9000e0040.1685 0.0445 7.3000e0040.0452 133.1498 133.1498 3.3200e0033.4500e003134.2600 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 2.0567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0449 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1148

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 133.6743 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 133.8452 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1149

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0980 0.0588 0.8017 2.5400e0030.3353 1.5000e0030.3368 0.0889 1.3800e0030.0903 257.2304 257.2304 5.9900e0036.4200e003259.2920 Total 0.0980 0.0588 0.8017 2.5400e0030.3353 1.5000e0030.3368 0.0889 1.3800e0030.0903 257.2304 257.2304 5.9900e0036.4200e003259.2920 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 133.6743 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 133.8452 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1150

3.8 Trenching - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1152

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1153
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.3825 2.1278 13.7484 0.0323 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,296.754 2 3,296.754
2 0.1866 0.1657 3,350.796
1 Unmitigated 1.3825 2.1278 13.7484 0.0323 3.6135 0.0261 3.6396 0.9637 0.0244 0.9881 3,296.754 2 3,296.754
2 0.1866 0.1657 3,350.796
1 4.2 Trip Summary Information

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 Parking Lot 0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1154
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.543085 0.056300 0.173085 0.134258 0.025645 0.007009 0.011926 0.017481 0.000552 0.000248 0.024848 0.000956 0.004606

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

0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5200e0034.3300e003237.4754

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1155

51.6849 5.6000e0045.0700e0034.2600e0033.0000e0053.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0046.0806 6.0806 1.2000e0041.1000e0046.1167 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1954.93 0.0211 0.1917 0.1610 1.1500e0030.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 229.9919 229.9919 4.4100e0034.2200e003231.3587 Total 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5300e0034.3300e003237.4754 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1156

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.95493 0.0211 0.1917 0.1610 1.1500e0030.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 229.9919 229.9919 4.4100e0034.2200e003231.3587 Total 0.0216 0.1967 0.1653 1.1800e0030.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 236.0725 236.0725 4.5300e0034.3300e003237.4754 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1157
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Unmitigated 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097

0.9156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.1379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.4100e0034.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Total 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1158

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.9156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.1379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.4100e0034.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Total 8.0579 4.3000e0040.0479 0.0000 1.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0041.7000e0040.1030 0.1030 2.7000e0040.1097 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1159

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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 30 of 30 Date: 3/14/2024 10:10 AM Fontana Citrus Industrial Building Project: Maximum Daily AQ and Annual GHG (All Electric) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1160
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 B
1161
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.
1162
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 1163
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 1164
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).
1165
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.
1166
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. 1167
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.
1168

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 C
1169

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. 1170

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. 1171

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.
1172

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. 1173

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. 1174

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. 1175

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
1176

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
1177

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
1178

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
1179

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
1180

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment” March 18, 2024
City of Fontana, Planning Department
Attn: Irene Romero, Associate Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Submitted via email to [email protected].

Re: Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse (SCH #2024020971) Dear Irene Romero,
This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse (“Project”) which has been proposed for construction. After reviewing the documents, there are a number of concerns which pop out based on the Project.

The first and biggest concern is the proximity of the Project to the nearby Jurupa Hills High School. While it might be tempting to say this should be a nonissue given that other warehouses already exist or have been proposed which are closer to that facility, the fact remains that this will increase the burden on those sensitive receptors—bad prior decisions should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate known issues.

Another concern is for the site access proposed for the Project. Based on the Traffic section and appendices, it is stated that the truck entrances will only have room for one truck at a time, but that it is expected that there would not be many truck trips so the likelihood of queueing in the street is low. This seems to be exceedingly wishful thinking, especially considering the fact that it will have a total of 50 docks. While the traffic appendix attempts to remedy the issue by stating that the gate can just be left open during opening hours to avoid that additional potential impediment, the Project is also stated to be speculative with the potential for 24/7 operations which would imply that the gate would have to be open all the time. Absent that, there is a very real possibility for the Project to result in the same sort of condition that is often seen at other warehouses all around the city where trucks are queued up to enter the facility in the public street, sometimes for extended periods of time. This would put lines of stopped trucks in traffic on Slover Avenue which is often moving at even faster than the signed speed limit of 45 MPH, creating a real safety hazard by design and presenting a deficient condition which would lead to severe crashes. This should not be allowed to happen and instead, the Project needs to be redesigned to put the truck entrances on the north side of the property to avoid that impact onto Slover Avenue.

Mailing Address
PO Box 33124
Jurupa Valley, CA 92519
www.ccaej.org
1181

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment” Finally, as noted above, the speed limit on Slover Avenue is at least 45 MPH. Though the MND states that there are no plans for bike paths in the vicinity of the Project, it does also note that Class II bike lanes are planned, as does the City’s Active Transportation Plan. However, the speed limit and traffic volumes of Slover Avenue make that an unacceptable bikeway option based on Caltrans guidance (Figure 1) so it is imperative that this opportunity to make sure the right infrastructure is provided at the right time not be overlooked. Similar to putting lines of stopped trucks on Slover Avenue, failure to do so would also result in the creation of a deficient condition for bicyclists and should be preemptively avoided by building either a Class I or Class IV facility instead.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out for answers of clarification.

Sincerely,
Marven Norman, Policy Coordinator
CC: Inland Empire Biking Alliance
CCAEJ is a long-standing community based organization with over 40 years of experience advocating for stronger regulations through strategic campaigns and building a base of community power. Most notably, CCAEJ’s founder Penny Newman won a landmark federal case against Stringfellow Construction which resulted in the ‘Stringfellow Acid Pits’ being declared one of the first Superfund sites in the nation. CCAEJ prioritizes community voices as we continue our grassroots efforts to bring lasting environmental justice to the Inland Valley Region.

Mailing Address
PO Box 33124
Jurupa Valley, CA 92519
www.ccaej.org
1182

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment” Figure 1: Caltrans Contextual Guidance for Preferred Bicycle Facilities.1 1 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/office-of-smart-mobility-and-climate-change/planning-contextual-guidance-m emo-03-11-20-a11y.pdf.

Mailing Address
PO Box 33124
Jurupa Valley, CA 92519
www.ccaej.org
1183
1 Irene Romero
From: Debbie Ashley Hemphill <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Irene Romero
Subject: Re: MCN22-115 - Slover and Boyle Project - Project Notice

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Subject: Concerns Regarding Project Proposal for Master Case No. 22-115 Dear Irene,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the project proposal for Master Case No. 22-115, specifically General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-009, Zone District Map Amendment (ZCA) No. 22-009, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20834 (TPM No. 22-029), Design Review (DRP) No. 22-054, and Development Agreement (AGR) No. 23-096.

As the residents of the community of Oleander, I believe that the inclusion of the Oleander properties is crucial for the successful development of this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Community Commercial (C-C) to Light Industrial (I-L) and the Zoning District Map Amendment from Community Commercial (C-1) to Light Industrial (M-1) for APN: 0251-151-10 raise concerns about the potential impact on the surrounding area.

The consolidation of twenty-one parcels into one for the construction of a 355,995 square-foot industrial commerce building, along with associated site improvements, may have significant implications for the community in terms of traffic congestion, environmental impact, and overall livability. Leaving out 75,040 square-foot. As in the photo I attached.

I urge the City Council to carefully consider the implications of this project on the Oleander properties and the community as a whole before making a decision. It is essential to prioritize sustainable development that takes into account the needs and concerns of all stakeholders involved. It's sad to see the resident's stuck in the industrial zone.

Please help them. It's not fair they do not want to do improvements on Oleander to save their budget.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can ensure responsible and inclusive development in our city.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Debbie Hemphill
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:02 PM Irene Romero <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,

Please use the following link to view the project notice for MCN22-115:
1184
2 https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43861/MCN-22-115-GPA-22-009?bidId=

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Irene Romero
Associate Planner • Planning
City of Fontana • 8353 Sierra Ave • Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected] • Office: (909) 350-6658

This email contains material that is CONFIDENTIAL and/or PRIVILEGED and for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, distribution or forwarding without express permission is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Thank you.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived. --
Debbie Ashley Hemphill REALTOR®
 DRE: 01998466
 C: (909) 204-1038
 E: [email protected]
 If immediate assistance please email or call my personal assistant:
 C; (909) 436-7498
 E: [email protected]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

CENTURY 21 KING

o 8338 DAY CREEK BLVD STE 101
o RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
1185
3 

1186
1 Irene Romero
From: Philip Viramontes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 12:39 PM
To: Irene Romero; Irene Romero
Subject: Fw: Notice of Filing DRP22-000049 and TPM22-000022

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Philip Viramontes
16190 Boyle Ave
Fontana, Ca. 92337
9095781089
1187
ATTACHMENT NO. 19

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

MASTER CASE NO. 22-115: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22-009, ZONING DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT NO. 22-009, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22-029 (TPM No. 20834), DESIGN REVIEW NO. 22-054, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 23-096
The applicant, is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from Community Commercial (C-C) to Light Industrial (I‐L), a Zoning District Map Amendment to amend the zoning designation from Community Commercial (C-1) to Light Industrial (M-1) for APN: 0251-151-10, a Tentative Parcel Map for the consolidation of twentyone (21) parcels into one (1) parcel of approximately 15.8 acres, and Design Review for site and architectural review to construct a 355,995 square foot industrial commerce building. The project will include site improvements of parking, landscaping, and other associated on-site and off-site improvements on a 15.8-acre project site. The applicant has also prepared a development agreement.

Environmental
Determination:

Pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to Section 6.04 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, an Initial Study (IS), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for this project. Based on the information in the Initial Study, no significant impact is anticipated as a result of project implementation, with mitigation incorporated, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the City Council’s consideration.
1188
The IS/MND is available at the Planning Department counter, and on the City of Fontana’s website: https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents. Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Irene Romero, at (909) 350-6658. E-mail:
[email protected]

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION BY LETTER OR EMAIL WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNER LISTED ABOVE.

IF YOU CHALLENGE IN COURT ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING A PUBLIC HEARING

ITEM, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE

RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Publish date: March 29, 2024
Location: The project is located on the
northside of Slover Avenue and
south of Boyle Avenue and on the
east side of Citrus Avenue.
(APNs: 0251-151-03 through -07,
-09 and -10, -14 through -16, -18
through -22, and -39 through -44)
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Time of Hearing: 2:00 PM
Boyle Ave.

Slover Ave.

Project Site
1189

Fontana City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Fontana City Council
April 9, 2024