Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, May 28, 2024 (part 2 of 15)

308
April 3, 2024
Appeal of April 2, 2023, Planning Commission Decision Approving Master Case No. 22-145, Tentative Parcel Map 20669 (TPM No. 22-034), Design Review No. 22-065 and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2023100792)

Page 2 of 2 ends

significant environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. In support of SAFER’s appeal, please see attached comments submitted to the Director of Planning on January 16, 2024.

Sincerely,
Marjan Abubo
Lozeau Drury LLP

Page 2 of 431 ends

309
Via Email
January 16, 2024
Cathline Fort, Chair
Idilio Sanchez, Vice Chair
Ralph Thrasher, Secretary
Raj Sangha, Commissioner
Ricardo Quintana, Commissioner
Fontana Planning Commission
Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project; Agenda Item PH-B
Dear Chair Fort and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project, listed as agenda item PH-B on the City of Fontana Planning Commission’s January 16, 2024 agenda (“Project”). This letter supplements our previous letter, submitted on November 20, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

After reviewing the Project and the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Project, with the assistance of expert consultants, SAFER concludes that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated, rendering the MND improper under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and necessitating an environmental impact report (“EIR”).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located East of Cypress Avenue, south of Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate (I)-10, and west of Juniper Avenue in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project would include a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity space, 658 parking spaces, and associated improvements on an 11.6-acre site.

Page 3 of 431 ends

310
January 16, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project

Page 2 of 5 ends

LEGAL STANDARD
An EIR is required rather than a mitigated negative declaration if there is a “fair argument” that a proposed project may have an adverse environmental impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”).Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc.

Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Page 4 of 431 ends

311
January 16, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project

Page 3 of 5 ends

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.

The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION
I. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Air Quality Impact.

Environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) reviewed the Project, the IS/MND, and its supporting documents and concluded that the Project will have significant air quality impacts. SWAPE’s expert comments and CVs are attached as Exhibit B.
a. The MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions.

The City’s analysis of the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts relied on emissions calculated with the model CalEEMod. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. “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.” (Ex. B, p. 1.) When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but those changes must be supported by substantial evidence.

SWAPE reviewed the CalEEMod output files and found several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND or changes were made to default values without justification. (Ex. B, pp. 2-7.) Specifically:

1. The City made unsubstantiated changes to the length of construction phases

2. The City made unsubstantiated reductions to natural gas energy use values

3. The City underestimated the number of Saturday and Sunday operational vehicle trips

4. The City incorrectly applied energy-related operational mitigation measures As a result of these inconsistencies, the Project’s air quality and GHG emissions were underestimated. (Ex. B, pp. 2-7.)
b. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Air Quality Impact.

Correcting the above errors, SWAPE re-ran the CalEEMod model and concluded that the Project’s construction-related volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions would be 85.45

Page 5 of 431 ends

312
January 16, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project

Page 4 of 5 ends

pounds per day (“lbs/day”) exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of significance of 75 lbs/day. (Ex. B, pp. 7-8.) SWAPE’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant air quality impact.

II. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Greenhouse Gas Impact.

Correcting the errors of the CalEEMod model described above also revealed a significant greenhouse gas impact. (Ex. B, pp. 14-16.) SWAPE amortized the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions and added them to the operational emissions, concluding that the Project would result in net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,513 MT CO2e/year. (Id., p. 16.) This would exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (Id.) SWAPE’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant GHG impact. As such, the City cannot rely on the IS/MND. An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant GHG impact.

Page 6 of 431 ends

313
January 16, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project

Page 5 of 5 ends

III. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.

The HRA prepared for the MND is incorrect for two reasons. First, as discussed above, it relies on incorrect inputs. Second, while the IS/MND claims an HRA was performed for construction and operation of the Project, the IS/MND only includes an HRA evaluating impacts from the Project’s construction emissions. Without conducting the operational HRA, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risks of the Project as a whole, including construction and operation.

Correcting the above errors, SWAPE performed a screening-level HRA that included emissions from Project construction and operations. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. (Ex. B, p. 10-14.) SWAPE calculates that the Project’s construction and operation may pose excess cancer risks to children of 402 per million, well above the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. (Id.) The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime calculated by SWAPE is 448 in one million, also exceeding the significance threshold. (Id.) These screening level calculations demonstrate that the Project’s construction and operational diesel particulate matter emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND is inadequate and violates CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marjan R. Abubo

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Page 7 of 431 ends

314
Exhibit A

Page 8 of 431 ends

315
Via Email
November 20, 2023
Cathline Fort, Chair
Idilio Sanchez, Vice Chair
Ralph Thrasher, Secretary
Raj Sangha, Commissioner
Ricardo Quintana, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Fontana
CC: Germaine Key, City Clerk
[email protected]
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project; Agenda Item PH-A
Dear Chair Fort and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project, listed as agenda item PH-A on the City of Fontana Planning Commission’s November 21, 2023 agenda, including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a mixed-use development in the City of Fontana (“Project”).

After reviewing the Project and the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Project, with the assistance of expert consultants, we conclude that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated, rendering the MND inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Accordingly, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required.

This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offermann, PE, CIH. SAFER reserves the right to supplement these comments during review of the SCEA for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. The Project site is located East of Cypress Avenue, south of Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate (I) 10, and west of Juniper Avenue in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project would include a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet

Page 9 of 431 ends

316
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 2 of 7 ends

of leasing and amenity space, onsite parking, and associated improvements on an 11.6 gross acre project site. Additionally, the project would include associated leasing buildings, fitness centers, pool areas, fire pits, lounge areas, a dog park, and other amenities.

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Page 10 of 431 ends

317
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 3 of 7 ends

review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.

DISCUSSION
I. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Violates CEQA.

The City inadequately analyzes how its proposed mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a level below significance. When the effectiveness of a mitigation measure is not apparent, the EIR must include facts and analysis supporting the claim that the measure “will have a quantifiable ‘substantial’ impact on reducing the adverse effects.” (See Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522 [failure to demonstrate net health effect of proposed air quality mitigation].)
The IS/MND admits that the Project will have a significant impact because Project construction will result in the “generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.” (IS/MND, p. 69-70.) During some phases of construction, the Project’s noise will exceed the threshold of significance by 7 dBA. (MND, Appendix H, p. 12.) The MND then claims that adoption of mitigation measure NOI-1 (“MM NOI-1”) will reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. MM NOI-1 requires:
“MM NOI-1 Reduce Construction Noise Levels. The applicant and/or project contractor shall implement the following measures:

Page 11 of 431 ends

318
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 4 of 7 ends

• All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall be properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation. • The project contractor shall place stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the Project site during the construction period. • All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
• A minimum eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the southern Project site property line where the property line is adjacent to the nearest noise sensitive receptor.”
(Id, p. 73.)
The MND fails to quantify the effectiveness of this mitigation measure, in violation of CEQA, and there is no evidence that MM NOI-1 will effectively reduce noise by 7 dBA.

Citing appendix H, the MND states, “an 8’-tall temporary noise barrier (e.g., typical plywood sheeting or suspension of acoustical blankets) would reduce construction noise to below 80 dBA at all nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-1 would reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.” (MND, p. 74.) But Appendix H makes no such statement, and there is no other evidence quantifying the effect that an eight foot-tall noise barrier would have on reducing construction noise, especially at the size, scale, and height of the Project.

The only quantification of any mitigation described in Appendix H is that “reducing operation time of a piece of steady noise-producing equipment by 50% would also yield a 3 dB reduction.” (MND Appendix H, p. 13.) But MM NOI-1 does not include a requirement to reduce the operating time of noise-producing equipment by 50%.

MM NOI-1 violates CEQA because there is no substantial evidence that the measure will be effective at reducing the Project’ significant construction noise impact by 7 dBA. Additional mitigation is needed to further reduce the impact or an EIR must be prepared.

II. The Project Will Have A Significant Air Quality Impact.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. (Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (November 11, 2023)). Mr.

Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on

Page 12 of 431 ends

319
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 5 of 7 ends

indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in residences, hotels, and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a long period of time. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard.

These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. A, p. 3.) Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that future residents of the Project may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of approximately 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id.) This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id.)
In addition, Mr. Offermann states that employees of the Project’s commercial spaces may experience significant exposures to formaldehyde during their work days. (Ex. C, pp. 4-5.) Assuming they work eight-hour days, five days per week, an employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 17.7 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., p. 5.) This too is more than the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.

The high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. San Bernadino Freeway - 10, Valley Boulevard, Juniper Avenue, Washington Drive, etc.), and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air. (Ex. A, p. 11.) Specifically, Mr. Offermann notes that “the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 511 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.” (Id., p. 12.) No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future residents and employees of the Project, meaning that the City cannot conclude with substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant air quality impacts.

Mr. Offermann’s comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant environmental impact that must be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigation measures must be imposed to reduce the increased cancer risk. (Ex. A, p. 6.) Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish

Page 13 of 431 ends

320
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 6 of 7 ends

systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. (Id., pp. 13-14.) The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. (See, Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 [“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”].) In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. (Ex. C, pp. 6-10.) Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.

Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emph. added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emph. in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c),

Page 14 of 431 ends

321
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana

Page 7 of 7 ends

(d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND is inadequate and violates CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marjan R. Abubo

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Page 15 of 431 ends

322
Exhibit A

Page 16 of 431 ends

323

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: November 11, 2023
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4763)
Pages: 20
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products

Page 17 of 431 ends

324
2 of 19
used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3 , which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

Page 18 of 431 ends

325
3 of 19
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

Page 19 of 431 ends

326
4 of 19
With respect to the Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which

Page 20 of 431 ends

327
5 of 19
is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 511 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from

Page 21 of 431 ends

328
6 of 19
composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific

Page 22 of 431 ends

329
7 of 19
material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for

Page 23 of 431 ends

330
8 of 19
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Page 24 of 431 ends

331
9 of 19
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. (Equation 1) where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per

Page 25 of 431 ends

332
10 of 19
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very

Page 26 of 431 ends

333
11 of 19
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., San Bernadino Freeway - 10, Valley Boulevard, Juniper Avenue, Washington Drive, etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA (Dudek, 2023), no on-site acoustic measurements have been made, just predicted existing with Project traffic noise levels at Valley Boulevard between Cypress Avenue and Juniper Avenue. Table 3.13-3 indicates that the predicted existing with Project traffic noise levels at Valley Boulevard between Cypress Avenue and Juniper Avenue is 69.6 dBA CNEL.

In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building

Page 27 of 431 ends

334
12 of 19
envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA (Dudek, 2023), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 511 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.

An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3 , or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Page 28 of 431 ends

335
13 of 19
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Page 29 of 431 ends

336
14 of 19
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental

Page 30 of 431 ends

337
15 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

Dudek. 2023. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA.

Page 31 of 431 ends

338
16 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Page 32 of 431 ends

339
17 of 19
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4

Page 33 of 431 ends

340
18 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1,

Page 34 of 431 ends

341
19 of 19
2017, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,

Page 35 of 431 ends

342
20 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

Page 36 of 431 ends

343
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.

Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.

Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.

Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.

Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.

Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.

Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.

Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.

Page 37 of 431 ends

344
2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.

Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.

Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.

Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).

Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.

Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).

Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.

Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.

Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.

Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.

Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.

Page 38 of 431 ends

345
3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.

Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.

Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)

Page 39 of 431 ends

346
4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists

SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.

Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.

Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.

Page 40 of 431 ends

347
5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.

Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.

Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.

Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.

SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.

Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.

Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.

Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.

Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.

Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.

Page 41 of 431 ends

348
6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.

Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.

Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.

Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.

Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from ecigarettes.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :

F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.

W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.

Page 42 of 431 ends

349
7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.

W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).

F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.

F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.

R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.

S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.

F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).

F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.

F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.

S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.

Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

Page 43 of 431 ends

350
8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.

Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.

L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.

F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.

Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints

Page 44 of 431 ends

351
9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.

F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.

F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.

R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.

Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

Page 45 of 431 ends

352
10 OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.

R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.

Page 46 of 431 ends

353
11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.

A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.

R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.

K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a SemiConductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.

Page 47 of 431 ends

354
12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.

A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.

F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.

S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.

F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.

F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.

L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.

PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.

Page 48 of 431 ends

355
13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.

Page 49 of 431 ends

356
14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.

"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,

Page 50 of 431 ends

357
15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.

Page 51 of 431 ends

358
16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.

ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.

Page 52 of 431 ends

359
17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.

Page 53 of 431 ends

360
18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.

Page 54 of 431 ends

361
19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.

Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Page 55 of 431 ends

362
20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.

Page 56 of 431 ends

363
21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.

Page 57 of 431 ends

364
Exhibit B

Page 58 of 431 ends

365
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]
December 1, 2023
Marjan Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (SCH No. 2023100792) Dear Mr. Abubo,
We have reviewed the October 2023 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000-square-feet (“SF”) of retail space, 14,150-SF of leasing and amenity space, and 658 parking spaces on the 11.6-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
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 19).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 can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental 1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.

Page 59 of 431 ends

366
2 Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed.

Justifications are provided for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs (“AQ & GHG Report”) and the Construction Health Risk Assessment (“HRA Report”) as Appendix A-1 and A-2 to the IS/MND, respectively, we found that several model inputs are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, 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 operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “JPI Fontanta Apartments” and “JPI Fontanta Apartments - HRA/LST” models include several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 3, 41, 72; Appendix A-2, pp. 113, 144, 175).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 8-9, 46, 86; Appendix A-2, pp. 118, 149, 180-181).

As demonstrated above, the site preparation phase is increased by 200%, from the default value of 10 to 30 days; the grading phase is increased by 10%, from the default value of 30 to 33 days; the building construction phase is increased by 90%, from the default value of 300 to 571 days; the architectural coating phase is increased by 555%, from the default value of 20 to 131 days; and the paving phase is increased by 340%, from the default value of 20 to 88 days; and. As previously mentioned, the

Page 60 of 431 ends

367
3 CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Construction schedule information provided by the project applicant” (Appendix A-1, pp. 2, 40, 71; Appendix A-2, pp. 112, 143, 174).

Regarding construction activities, the IS/MND states:
“The project applicant intends to commence construction on or around September 2024. It is anticipated that construction would take approximately 34 months, concluding in May 2027.1 Table 2-1 provides a tentative project construction schedule, as used in air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact analysis (refer to Section 3.3 Air Quality, and Section

3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this IS/MND; also see Appendix A-1 for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs)” (p. 5).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND includes Table 2-1, which provides the construction schedule as used in the AQ & GHG Report and HRA Report (see excerpt below) (p. 5, Table 2-1).

However, the changes to the individual construction phase lengths remain unsubstantiated as the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate source for the individual construction phase lengths. As demonstrated above, the source for the construction schedule is the CalEEMod output files themselves.

This is incorrect, as the Project documents should substantiate the changes included in the CalEEMod model, not vice versa.3 As the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate source for the revised construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the changes. Until a proper source is provided, the models should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 34 months.4
The construction schedule included in the model presents an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the 2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 3 “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. 4 See Attachment A for proportionately altered construction schedule.

Page 61 of 431 ends

368
4 CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).5
By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the models may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction 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 “JPI Fontanta Apartments” and “JPI Fontanta Apartments - HRA/LST” models include changes to the default natural gas energy use values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 3, 41, 72; Appendix A-2, pp. 113, 144, 175).

As demonstrated above, the non-Title-24 natural gas (“NT24NG”) and Title-24 natural gas (“T24NG”) values are reduced to 0 kilowatt hours per square feet (“KWhr/SF”). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 6 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
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. 32. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

Page 62 of 431 ends

369
5 “Residential energy use was modified to reflect electricity only design” (Appendix A-1, pp. 3, 41, 72; Appendix A-2, pp. 113, 144, 175).

However, the IS/MND contradicts this claim, stating:
“Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas. The project would comply with 2022 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, reducing energy used in the state. Based on compliance with Title 24, the project would generate a need for natural gas that is consistent with multifamily homes” (p. 97).

As discussed, the IS/MND states that the Project would use natural gas at a rate consistent with multifamily homes. Consequently, the reductions to the natural gas energy use values included in the model are incorrect.

These incorrect reductions present an issue, as energy use values are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage.7 By incorrectly assuming that the Project would not rely on any natural gas utilities, the model underestimates the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Underestimated Number of Saturday and Sunday Operational Vehicle Trips According to the Transportation Attachments (“TA”), provided as Appendix I to the IS/MND, the Project is expected to generate 2,170 daily vehicle trips (see excerpt below) (p. 3, Table 1). 7 “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.

Page 63 of 431 ends

370
6 The Project’s model should have included trip rates that reflect the estimated number of average daily vehicle trips. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “JPI Fontanta Apartments” and “JPI Fontanta Apartments - HRA/LST” models include only approximately 1,968 and 1,576 Saturday and Sunday vehicle trips, respectively (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 27, 64, 104; Appendix A-2, pp. 136, 167, 199).

The Saturday and Sunday vehicle trips are underestimated by approximately 202- and 594-trips, respectively. Consequently, the trip rates inputted into the model are inconsistent with the information provided by the TA.

These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the operational vehicle trip rates to calculate the emissions associated with the operational on-road vehicles.8 By including underestimated operational daily vehicle trips, the models underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “JPI Fontanta Apartments” and “JPI Fontanta Apartments - HRA/LST” models include the following energy-related mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 28, 65, 105; Appendix A-2, pp. 137, 168, 200).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“On-site Renewable energy reduction based on information provided by the project applicant” (Appendix A-1, pp. 3, 41, 72; Appendix A-2, pp. 113, 144, 175). 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. 36. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

Page 64 of 431 ends

371
7 Regarding the on-site generation of renewable energy, the IS/MND states:
“Additionally, the project would meet the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that require the roofs of the proposed structures to be ‘solar-ready’” (p. 97).

However, the IS/MND’s inclusion of solar-ready roofs does not commit or explicitly require them to install and use solar panels. Until the IS/MND includes the use of on-site renewable energy in a formal mitigation measure, the inclusion of the mitigation measure in CalEEMod is incorrect. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”10
As demonstrated above, project design features (“PDFs”) are not mitigation measures and may be eliminated from the Project’s design. As the installation and use of renewable energy on the Project site is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the above-mentioned energyrelated operational mitigation measure in the models is incorrect. By including an operational mitigation measure without properly committing to its implementation, the models 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 proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 34 months, omitted the unsubstantiated changes to natural gas energy use values, included the correct Saturday and Sunday operational vehicle trips, and excluded the incorrect energy-related operational mitigation measure. 11 Our updated analysis estimates that the volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions associated with Project construction exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 75 pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 18) (see table below). 12 10 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 11 See Attachment B for updated CalEEMod model. 12 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

Page 65 of 431 ends

372
8 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction VOC
(lbs/day)
IS/MND 25.81
SWAPE 85.45
% Increase 231%
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 231% 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.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND conducts a health risk analysis (“HRA”) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions from Project construction. Specifically, the IS/MND estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 6.92 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 28, Table 3.3-7).

However, the IS/MND fails to mention the TAC impacts or evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the IS/MND’s construction-related HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon emissions estimates from a flawed air model. As previously discussed, upon review of the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the HRA Report as Appendix A-2 to the IS/MND, we found that several model inputs are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. Therefore, the HRA relies on an underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. As a result, the IS/MND’s construction-related HRA and the resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Page 66 of 431 ends

373
9 Second, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”13 According to the TA, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 2,170 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (Appendix I, p. 3, Table 1). However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.14 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”15 OEHHA also recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).16 While the IS/MND and associated documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Thus, operation of the Project exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. As these recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from DPM emissions generated during Project operation.

Fourth, while the IS/MND includes an HRA evaluating the Project’s health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer 13 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.

Page 67 of 431 ends

374
10 risk at the receptor location.”17 However, the IS/MND’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the combined cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is incorrect, and such an updated analysis should be prepared to quantify and sum the entirety of the Project’s construction and operational health risks together to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.18 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). 19, 20 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors using the Project’s annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s HRA CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. Subtracting the 978-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.32 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s annual CalEEMod output file indicates that operational activities will generate approximately 93 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.21 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 93.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000134 g/s. Project operation was simulated as a 11.6-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with approximate dimensions of 306- by 17 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 18 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screeningmodels_.html#:~:text=AERSCREEN%20is%20the%20recommended%20screening,%2Dhour%2C%20and%20annual %20concentrations.
19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 20 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-2588-air-toxics-hot-spots/hot-spots-risk-assessment 21 See Attachment C for calculations.

Page 68 of 431 ends

375
11 153-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Fontana was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.22
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.23 According to the IS/MND, “[t]he nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 90 feet [27 meters] west of the project site” (p. 24).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project operation is approximately 1.146 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.1146 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.24 Guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
22 “Fontana.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0624680. 23 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000J3ER.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986+Thru+199 0&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=& QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data %5C86thru90%5CTxt%5C00000007%5C2000J3ER.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h %7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeek Page=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL
24 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplementalguidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.

Page 69 of 431 ends

376
12 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)25
Age
Sensitivity
Factor26
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home27
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
28 Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

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

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
25 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 26 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 27 “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. 28 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

Page 70 of 431 ends

377
13 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 978-day construction schedule, the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the latter 0.43 years of the child stage of life (2 – 16 years), as well as the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30) stage. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Construction 2 * *
Construction 0.43 * *
Operation 13.57 0.1146 4.02E-05
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 4.02E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.1146 4.61E-06
Lifetime 30 4.48E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to children and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 40.2 and 4.61 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with the Project operation over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 44.8 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 6.92 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 51.7 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime.29 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in 29 Calculated: 44.8 in one million + 6.92 in one million = ~51.7 in one million.

Page 71 of 431 ends

378
14 one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

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

EPA, 1992).

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

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared including a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

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 2,868.70 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (see excerpt below) (p. 55, Table 3.8-2).

Page 72 of 431 ends

379
15 As such, the IS/MND concludes that the “[a]nnual operational GHG emissions with amortized construction emissions would not exceed the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year” (p. 49). However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons.
(1) The IS/MND’s quantitative analysis relies upon a flawed air model; and (2) SWAPE’s updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,868.70 MT CO2e/year (p. 55, Table 3.8-2). However, the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod models, provided in the AQ & 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) Updated Greenhouse Gas Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, to the SCAQMD interim bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.30
SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files disclose the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions, which include approximately 2,238 MT CO2e/year of total construction emissions (sum of 2023, 2024, and 2025) and approximately 3,439 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, 30 “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.

Page 73 of 431 ends

380
16 waste, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,513 MT CO2e/year. After applying the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, our updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact (see table below).

SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Total Construction 2,237.85
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 74.60
Area 97.28
Energy 972.77
Mobile 2,239.96
Waste 0.00
Water 128.74
Annual Operational 3,438.76
Total Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,513.36
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the SWAPE, exceed the SCAQMD interim bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, resulting in a potentially significant impact. As such, an EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant 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. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 31 31 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.

Page 74 of 431 ends

381
17 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
i) On Caltrans projects, Caltrans Standard Specifications 10-Dust Control, 17-Watering, and 18-Dust Palliative shall be incorporated into project specifications.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.

Page 75 of 431 ends

382
18 s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

Page 76 of 431 ends

383
19 2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.

Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;

Page 77 of 431 ends

384
20 vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;

Page 78 of 431 ends

385
21 ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

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

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

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

Page 79 of 431 ends

386
22 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.

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Updated Construction Schedule
Attachment B: SWAPE's CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment C: Updated Health Risk Calculations
Attachment D: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment E: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment F: Paul Rosenfeld CV

Page 80 of 431 ends

387
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Demolition 20 559 0.0358 978 35
Site Preparation 10 559 0.0179 978 17
Grading 30 559 0.0537 978 52
Construction 300 559 0.5367 978 525
Paving 20 559 0.0358 978 35
Architectural Coating 20 559 0.0358 978 35
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 9/4/2024 9/4/2024
End Date 3/17/2026 5/10/2027
Total Days 559 978
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment A

Page 81 of 431 ends

388
JPI Fontana Apartments
South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths." Grading -
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment regarding "Underestimated Number of Saturday and Sunday Operational Vehicle Trips." Woodstoves - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Energy Use - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Natural Gas Energy Values." Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 14.15 1000sqft 0.32 14,150.00 0 Parking Lot 646.00 Space 5.81 258,400.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 437.00 Dwelling Unit 11.50 437,352.00 1250 Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment B

Page 82 of 431 ends

389
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding "Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure." Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 525.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 52.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2026 5/10/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/20/2026 2/1/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/1/2024 10/22/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/26/2024 1/27/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/17/2026 3/22/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/15/2024 11/14/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/18/2026 3/23/2027 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/27/2024 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/16/2024 11/15/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/21/2026 2/2/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/2/2024 10/23/2024 tblEnergyUse NT24E 3,054.10 3,525.70
tblEnergyUse T24E 164.47 3,234.18
tblFireplaces NumberWood 21.85 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 437,000.00 437,352.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 83 of 431 ends

390

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 429.00 430.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 15.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 8.50
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 5.53
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 14.55
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 46.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 46.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 46.50
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 21.85 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 21.85 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 84 of 431 ends

391

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 0.1173 1.1379 0.9830 2.1200e0030.3583 0.0494 0.4077 0.1519 0.0456 0.1974 0.0000 186.7338 186.7338 0.0552 5.4000e004188.2726 2025 0.3471 2.3008 3.8333 0.0104 0.7834 0.0799 0.8634 0.2129 0.0750 0.2879 0.0000 945.5442 945.5442 0.0989 0.0380 959.3464 2026 0.3349 2.1792 3.7592 0.0104 0.6914 0.0744 0.7658 0.1854 0.0700 0.2554 0.0000 943.4915 943.4915 0.0876 0.0397 957.5008 2027 1.5469 0.3558 0.6415 1.4600e0030.0779 0.0146 0.0924 0.0208 0.0136 0.0344 0.0000 131.1905 131.1905 0.0192 3.5600e003132.7304 Maximum 1.5469 2.3008 3.8333 0.0104 0.7834 0.0799 0.8634 0.2129 0.0750 0.2879 0.0000 945.5442 945.5442 0.0989 0.0397 959.3464 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 85 of 431 ends

392

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 0.1173 1.1379 0.9830 2.1200e0030.3583 0.0494 0.4077 0.1519 0.0456 0.1974 0.0000 186.7336 186.7336 0.0552 5.4000e004188.2724 2025 0.3471 2.3008 3.8333 0.0104 0.7834 0.0799 0.8634 0.2129 0.0750 0.2879 0.0000 945.5438 945.5438 0.0989 0.0380 959.3460 2026 0.3349 2.1792 3.7592 0.0104 0.6914 0.0744 0.7658 0.1854 0.0700 0.2554 0.0000 943.4911 943.4911 0.0876 0.0397 957.5004 2027 1.5469 0.3558 0.6415 1.4600e0030.0779 0.0146 0.0924 0.0208 0.0136 0.0344 0.0000 131.1904 131.1904 0.0192 3.5600e003132.7303 Maximum 1.5469 2.3008 3.8333 0.0104 0.7834 0.0799 0.8634 0.2129 0.0750 0.2879 0.0000 945.5438 945.5438 0.0989 0.0397 959.3460 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-4-2024 12-3-2024 0.8976 0.8976
2 12-4-2024 3-3-2025 0.9039 0.9039
3 3-4-2025 6-3-2025 0.6343 0.6343
4 6-4-2025 9-3-2025 0.6313 0.6313
5 9-4-2025 12-3-2025 0.6314 0.6314
6 12-4-2025 3-3-2026 0.6235 0.6235
7 3-4-2026 6-3-2026 0.6289 0.6289
8 6-4-2026 9-3-2026 0.6259 0.6259
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 86 of 431 ends

393
9 9-4-2026 12-3-2026 0.6259 0.6259
10 12-4-2026 3-3-2027 0.5199 0.5199
11 3-4-2027 6-3-2027 1.5852 1.5852
Highest 1.5852 1.5852

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 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843 Energy 0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8700e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 967.5167 967.5167 0.0596 0.0126 972.7732 Mobile 1.0402 1.2286 10.5694 0.0239 2.6306 0.0174 2.6480 0.7020 0.0162 0.7182 0.0000 2,207.062 1 2,207.062
1 0.1434 0.0984 2,239.964
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 44.3292 0.0000 44.3292 2.6198 0.0000 109.8236 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.9248 111.0022 120.9270 1.0287 0.0252 154.1568 Total 3.0309 1.6499 15.2386 0.0265 2.6306 0.0723 2.7029 0.7020 0.0711 0.7731 54.2540 3,382.157 9 3,436.411
9 3.8603 0.1379 3,574.002
0 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 87 of 431 ends

394

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 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843 Energy 0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8700e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 967.5167 967.5167 0.0596 0.0126 972.7732 Mobile 1.0402 1.2286 10.5694 0.0239 2.6306 0.0174 2.6480 0.7020 0.0162 0.7182 0.0000 2,207.062 1 2,207.062
1 0.1434 0.0984 2,239.964
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.9399 94.1897 102.1295 0.8235 0.0202 128.7411 Total 3.0309 1.6499 15.2386 0.0265 2.6306 0.0723 2.7029 0.7020 0.0711 0.7731 7.9399 3,365.345 4 3,373.285
2 1.0353 0.1329 3,438.762
6 Mitigated Operational

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.37 0.50 1.84 73.18 3.62 3.78 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 88 of 431 ends

395
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/28/2025 2/1/2027 5 525 5 Paving Paving 2/2/2027 3/22/2027 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/23/2027 5/10/2027 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
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
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 885,638; Residential Outdoor: 295,213; Non-Residential Indoor: 27,225; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,075; Striped Parking Area: 15,504 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 25.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 156
Acres of Paving: 5.81
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 89 of 431 ends

396

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
Off-Road 0.0393 0.3654 0.3449 6.8000e0040.0168 0.0168 0.0156 0.0156 0.0000 59.4931 59.4931 0.0167 0.0000 59.9092 Total 0.0393 0.3654 0.3449 6.8000e0040.0168 0.0168 0.0156 0.0156 0.0000 59.4931 59.4931 0.0167 0.0000 59.9092 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
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 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 430.00 92.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 16.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 90 of 431 ends

397

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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.6000e0045.6000e0047.9800e0032.0000e0052.8800e0032.0000e0052.9000e0037.6000e0041.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 2.1880 2.1880 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.2054 Total 7.6000e0045.6000e0047.9800e0032.0000e0052.8800e0032.0000e0052.9000e0037.6000e0041.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 2.1880 2.1880 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.2054 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0393 0.3654 0.3449 6.8000e0040.0168 0.0168 0.0156 0.0156 0.0000 59.4930 59.4930 0.0167 0.0000 59.9091 Total 0.0393 0.3654 0.3449 6.8000e0040.0168 0.0168 0.0156 0.0156 0.0000 59.4930 59.4930 0.0167 0.0000 59.9091 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 91 of 431 ends

398

Page 92 of 431 ends

399

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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e0051.9500e0037.3000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0049.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0040.0000 0.8946 0.8946 3.0000e0051.3000e0040.9341 Worker 4.5000e0043.3000e0044.6500e0031.0000e0051.6800e0031.0000e0051.6900e0034.5000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.2753 1.2753 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2854 Total 5.0000e0042.2800e0035.3800e0032.0000e0052.0000e0032.0000e0052.0200e0035.4000e0042.0000e0055.5000e0040.0000 2.1699 2.1699 6.0000e0051.6000e0042.2195 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1671 0.0000 0.1671 0.0859 0.0000 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.0105 0.0105 9.6100e0039.6100e0030.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Total 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.1671 0.0105 0.1775 0.0859 9.6100e0030.0955 0.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 93 of 431 ends

400

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 0.1821 0.0000 0.1821 0.0636 0.0000 0.0636 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0531 0.5342 0.4574 1.0200e0030.0220 0.0220 0.0203 0.0203 0.0000 89.9572 89.9572 0.0291 0.0000 90.6846 Total 0.0531 0.5342 0.4574 1.0200e0030.1821 0.0220 0.2041 0.0636 0.0203 0.0838 0.0000 89.9572 89.9572 0.0291 0.0000 90.6846 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 94 of 431 ends

401

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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e0043.7900e0031.4100e0032.0000e0056.2000e0042.0000e0056.5000e0041.8000e0042.0000e0052.0000e0040.0000 1.7366 1.7366 6.0000e0052.5000e0041.8132 Worker 9.6000e0047.1000e0040.0100 3.0000e0053.6200e0032.0000e0053.6400e0039.6000e0042.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 2.7506 2.7506 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.7725 Total 1.0600e0034.5000e0030.0114 5.0000e0054.2400e0034.0000e0054.2900e0031.1400e0034.0000e0051.1800e0030.0000 4.4872 4.4872 1.3000e0043.2000e0044.5856 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1821 0.0000 0.1821 0.0636 0.0000 0.0636 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0531 0.5342 0.4574 1.0200e0030.0220 0.0220 0.0203 0.0203 0.0000 89.9571 89.9571 0.0291 0.0000 90.6845 Total 0.0531 0.5342 0.4574 1.0200e0030.1821 0.0220 0.2041 0.0636 0.0203 0.0838 0.0000 89.9571 89.9571 0.0291 0.0000 90.6845 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 95 of 431 ends

402

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.1399 0.0000 0.1399 0.0404 0.0000 0.0404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0276 0.2655 0.2502 5.9000e0040.0107 0.0107 9.8800e0039.8800e0030.0000 51.7809 51.7809 0.0168 0.0000 52.1996 Total 0.0276 0.2655 0.2502 5.9000e0040.1399 0.0107 0.1507 0.0404 9.8800e0030.0503 0.0000 51.7809 51.7809 0.0168 0.0000 52.1996 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 96 of 431 ends

403

3.4 Grading - 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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0000e0052.1700e0038.0000e0041.0000e0053.6000e0041.0000e0053.7000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0051.2000e0040.0000 0.9816 0.9816 3.0000e0051.4000e0041.0250 Worker 5.2000e0043.7000e0045.3800e0032.0000e0052.0800e0031.0000e0052.1000e0035.5000e0041.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 1.5298 1.5298 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.5415 Total 5.8000e0042.5400e0036.1800e0033.0000e0052.4400e0032.0000e0052.4700e0036.5000e0042.0000e0056.8000e0040.0000 2.5114 2.5114 6.0000e0051.8000e0042.5665 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1399 0.0000 0.1399 0.0404 0.0000 0.0404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0276 0.2655 0.2502 5.9000e0040.0107 0.0107 9.8800e0039.8800e0030.0000 51.7808 51.7808 0.0168 0.0000 52.1995 Total 0.0276 0.2655 0.2502 5.9000e0040.1399 0.0107 0.1507 0.0404 9.8800e0030.0503 0.0000 51.7808 51.7808 0.0168 0.0000 52.1995 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 97 of 431 ends

404

3.5 Building Construction - 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
Off-Road 0.1655 1.5088 1.9462 3.2600e0030.0638 0.0638 0.0601 0.0601 0.0000 280.6225 280.6225 0.0660 0.0000 282.2717 Total 0.1655 1.5088 1.9462 3.2600e0030.0638 0.0638 0.0601 0.0601 0.0000 280.6225 280.6225 0.0660 0.0000 282.2717 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 98 of 431 ends

405

3.5 Building Construction - 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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0115 0.4240 0.1564 1.9600e0030.0702 2.3700e0030.0726 0.0203 2.2700e0030.0225 0.0000 191.7135 191.7135 6.6600e0030.0279 200.1784 Worker 0.1420 0.1000 1.4743 4.5700e0030.5708 2.9700e0030.5738 0.1516 2.7400e0030.1543 0.0000 418.9159 418.9159 9.4100e0030.0100 422.1302 Total 0.1535 0.5240 1.6307 6.5300e0030.6410 5.3400e0030.6464 0.1719 5.0100e0030.1769 0.0000 610.6293 610.6293 0.0161 0.0379 622.3086 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1655 1.5088 1.9462 3.2600e0030.0638 0.0638 0.0601 0.0601 0.0000 280.6222 280.6222 0.0660 0.0000 282.2713 Total 0.1655 1.5088 1.9462 3.2600e0030.0638 0.0638 0.0601 0.0601 0.0000 280.6222 280.6222 0.0660 0.0000 282.2713 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 99 of 431 ends

406

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Total 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 100 of 431 ends

407

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.0121 0.4540 0.1667 2.0700e0030.0757 2.5500e0030.0783 0.0219 2.4400e0030.0243 0.0000 202.8897 202.8897 7.2000e0030.0295 211.8601 Worker 0.1444 0.0979 1.4935 4.7800e0030.6157 3.0400e0030.6187 0.1635 2.8000e0030.1663 0.0000 437.9469 437.9469 9.2300e0030.0102 441.2072 Total 0.1565 0.5519 1.6602 6.8500e0030.6914 5.5900e0030.6970 0.1854 5.2400e0030.1906 0.0000 640.8366 640.8366 0.0164 0.0397 653.0673 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Total 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 101 of 431 ends

408

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.0150 0.1372 0.1769 3.0000e0045.8000e0035.8000e0035.4600e0035.4600e0030.0000 25.5111 25.5111 6.0000e0030.0000 25.6611 Total 0.0150 0.1372 0.1769 3.0000e0045.8000e0035.8000e0035.4600e0035.4600e0030.0000 25.5111 25.5111 6.0000e0030.0000 25.6611 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 102 of 431 ends

409

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.0000e0030.0380 0.0139 1.7000e0046.3800e0032.1000e0046.6000e0031.8400e0032.0000e0042.0500e0030.0000 16.7611 16.7611 6.1000e0042.4400e00317.5033 Worker 0.0115 7.5500e0030.1190 3.9000e0040.0519 2.4000e0040.0521 0.0138 2.2000e0040.0140 0.0000 35.8771 35.8771 7.1000e0048.1000e00436.1373 Total 0.0125 0.0455 0.1329 5.6000e0040.0583 4.5000e0040.0587 0.0156 4.2000e0040.0161 0.0000 52.6382 52.6382 1.3200e0033.2500e00353.6406 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0150 0.1372 0.1769 3.0000e0045.8000e0035.8000e0035.4600e0035.4600e0030.0000 25.5111 25.5111 6.0000e0030.0000 25.6610 Total 0.0150 0.1372 0.1769 3.0000e0045.8000e0035.8000e0035.4600e0035.4600e0030.0000 25.5111 25.5111 6.0000e0030.0000 25.6610 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 103 of 431 ends

410

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.0160 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3170 Paving 7.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0236 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3170 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 104 of 431 ends

411

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 6.8000e0044.5000e0047.0400e0032.0000e0053.0700e0031.0000e0053.0900e0038.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 2.1238 2.1238 4.0000e0055.0000e0052.1392 Total 6.8000e0044.5000e0047.0400e0032.0000e0053.0700e0031.0000e0053.0900e0038.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 2.1238 2.1238 4.0000e0055.0000e0052.1392 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0160 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3169 Paving 7.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0236 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3169 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 105 of 431 ends

412

Page 106 of 431 ends

413

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6600e0032.4000e0030.0379 1.2000e0040.0165 8.0000e0050.0166 4.3900e0037.0000e0054.4600e0030.0000 11.4155 11.4155 2.3000e0042.6000e00411.4983 Total 3.6600e0032.4000e0030.0379 1.2000e0040.0165 8.0000e0050.0166 4.3900e0037.0000e0054.4600e0030.0000 11.4155 11.4155 2.3000e0042.6000e00411.4983 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.4884 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9900e0030.0201 0.0317 5.0000e0059.0000e0049.0000e0049.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.4000e0040.0000 4.4743 Total 1.4914 0.0201 0.0317 5.0000e0059.0000e0049.0000e0049.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.4000e0040.0000 4.4743 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 107 of 431 ends

414

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 108 of 431 ends

415
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.0402 1.2286 10.5694 0.0239 2.6306 0.0174 2.6480 0.7020 0.0162 0.7182 0.0000 2,207.062 1 2,207.062
1 0.1434 0.0984 2,239.964
1 Unmitigated 1.0402 1.2286 10.5694 0.0239 2.6306 0.0174 2.6480 0.7020 0.0162 0.7182 0.0000 2,207.062 1 2,207.062
1 0.1434 0.0984 2,239.964
1 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,983.98 1,983.98 1983.98 6,643,339 6,643,339 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 186.00 186.00 186.00 343,993 343,993
Total 2,169.98 2,169.98 2,169.98 6,987,331 6,987,331
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.55 5.53 8.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Strip Mall 15.00 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 109 of 431 ends

416
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 General Office Building 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 Parking Lot 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 Strip Mall 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657

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 629.0651 629.0651 0.0531 6.4400e003632.3103 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 629.0651 629.0651 0.0531 6.4400e003632.3103 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8700e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 338.4516 338.4516 6.4900e0036.2000e003340.4628 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8700e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 338.4516 338.4516 6.4900e0036.2000e003340.4628

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 110 of 431 ends

417

6.28501e
+006

0.0339 0.2896 0.1232 1.8500e0030.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0000 335.3920 335.3920 6.4300e0036.1500e003337.3850 General Office
Building
48534.5 2.6000e0042.3800e0032.0000e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 2.5900 2.5900 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.6054 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 Strip Mall 8800 5.0000e0054.3000e0043.6000e0040.0000 3.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0050.0000 0.4696 0.4696 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4724 Total 0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8600e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 338.4516 338.4516 6.4900e0036.2100e003340.4628 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 111 of 431 ends

418

6.28501e
+006

0.0339 0.2896 0.1232 1.8500e0030.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0000 335.3920 335.3920 6.4300e0036.1500e003337.3850 General Office
Building
48534.5 2.6000e0042.3800e0032.0000e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 2.5900 2.5900 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.6054 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 Strip Mall 8800 5.0000e0054.3000e0043.6000e0040.0000 3.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0050.0000 0.4696 0.4696 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4724 Total 0.0342 0.2924 0.1256 1.8600e0030.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 338.4516 338.4516 6.4900e0036.2100e003340.4628 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 112 of 431 ends

419

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.27808e
+006
581.3523 0.0491 5.9500e003584.3514
General Office
Building
130039 23.0618 1.9500e0032.4000e00423.1807
Parking Lot 90440 16.0391 1.3500e0031.6000e00416.1219 Strip Mall 48560 8.6119 7.3000e0049.0000e0058.6563
Total 629.0651 0.0531 6.4400e003632.3103
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 113 of 431 ends

420

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.27808e
+006
581.3523 0.0491 5.9500e003584.3514
General Office
Building
130039 23.0618 1.9500e0032.4000e00423.1807
Parking Lot 90440 16.0391 1.3500e0031.6000e00416.1219 Strip Mall 48560 8.6119 7.3000e0049.0000e0058.6563
Total 629.0651 0.0531 6.4400e003632.3103
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 114 of 431 ends

421
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843 Unmitigated 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843

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

0.1488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.6627 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.0100e0030.0770 0.0328 4.9000e0046.2300e0036.2300e0036.2300e0036.2300e0030.0000 89.1989 89.1989 1.7100e0031.6400e00389.7290 Landscaping 0.1360 0.0519 4.5108 2.4000e0040.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0000 7.3780 7.3780 7.0900e0030.0000 7.5553 Total 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 115 of 431 ends

422
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.6627 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.0100e0030.0770 0.0328 4.9000e0046.2300e0036.2300e0036.2300e0036.2300e0030.0000 89.1989 89.1989 1.7100e0031.6400e00389.7290 Landscaping 0.1360 0.0519 4.5108 2.4000e0040.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0000 7.3780 7.3780 7.0900e0030.0000 7.5553 Total 1.9565 0.1290 4.5436 7.3000e0040.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0312 0.0000 96.5769 96.5769 8.8000e0031.6400e00397.2843 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 116 of 431 ends

423
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 102.1295 0.8235 0.0202 128.7411
Unmitigated 120.9270 1.0287 0.0252 154.1568

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

28.4723 /

17.9499
110.1486 0.9363 0.0229 140.3927
General Office
Building

2.51493 /

1.54141

9.6425 0.0827 2.0300e00312.3134
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.29629 /

0.181597

1.1360 9.7400e0032.4000e0041.4507
Total 120.9270 1.0288 0.0252 154.1568
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 117 of 431 ends

424

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

22.7778 /

16.855

93.0349 0.7495 0.0184 117.2555
General Office
Building

2.01195 /

1.44738

8.1361 0.0662 1.6200e00310.2751
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.237032 /

0.17052

0.9585 7.8000e0031.9000e0041.2105
Total 102.1295 0.8235 0.0202 128.7411
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 118 of 431 ends

425
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 44.3292 2.6198 0.0000 109.8236
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
201.02 40.8052 2.4115 0.0000 101.0933
General Office
Building

13.16 2.6714 0.1579 0.0000 6.6182
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 4.2 0.8526 0.0504 0.0000 2.1122
Total 44.3292 2.6198 0.0000 109.8236
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 119 of 431 ends

426

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 120 of 431 ends

427

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 40 Date: 11/27/2023 10:01 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 121 of 431 ends

428
JPI Fontana Apartments
South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths." Grading -
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment regarding "Underestimated Number of Saturday and Sunday Operational Vehicle Trips." Woodstoves - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Energy Use - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Natural Gas Energy Values." Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 122 of 431 ends

429
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding "Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure." Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 525.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 52.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2026 5/10/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/20/2026 2/1/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/1/2024 10/22/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/26/2024 1/27/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/17/2026 3/22/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/15/2024 11/14/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/18/2026 3/23/2027 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/27/2024 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/16/2024 11/15/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/21/2026 2/2/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/2/2024 10/23/2024 tblEnergyUse NT24E 3,054.10 3,525.70
tblEnergyUse T24E 164.47 3,234.18
tblFireplaces NumberWood 21.85 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 437,000.00 437,352.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 123 of 431 ends

430

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 429.00 430.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 15.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 8.50
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 5.53
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 14.55
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 46.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 46.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 46.50
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 21.85 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 21.85 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 124 of 431 ends

431

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 3.2842 32.6340 28.4605 0.0651 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 6,317.807 8 6,317.807
8 1.9520 0.0210 6,372.869
9 2025 2.9634 28.1951 30.4446 0.0826 9.4656 1.1333 10.5989 3.7241 1.0427 4.7668 0.0000 8,291.675 0 8,291.675
0 1.9511 0.3379 8,411.027
2 2026 2.5919 16.4569 29.6302 0.0811 5.3955 0.5704 5.9658 1.4443 0.5364 1.9806 0.0000 8,136.429 6 8,136.429
6 0.7385 0.3286 8,252.818
0 2027 85.4334 16.3754 28.9377 0.0797 5.3955 0.5689 5.9643 1.4443 0.5350 1.9793 0.0000 7,993.511 3 7,993.511
3 0.7317 0.3199 8,107.139
7 Maximum 85.4334 32.6340 30.4446 0.0826 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 8,291.675 0 8,291.675
0 1.9520 0.3379 8,411.027
2 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 125 of 431 ends

432

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 3.2842 32.6340 28.4605 0.0651 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 6,317.807 8 6,317.807
8 1.9520 0.0210 6,372.869
9 2025 2.9634 28.1951 30.4446 0.0826 9.4656 1.1333 10.5989 3.7241 1.0427 4.7668 0.0000 8,291.675 0 8,291.675
0 1.9511 0.3379 8,411.027
2 2026 2.5919 16.4569 29.6302 0.0811 5.3955 0.5704 5.9658 1.4443 0.5364 1.9806 0.0000 8,136.429 6 8,136.429
6 0.7385 0.3286 8,252.818
0 2027 85.4334 16.3754 28.9377 0.0797 5.3955 0.5689 5.9643 1.4443 0.5350 1.9793 0.0000 7,993.511 3 7,993.511
3 0.7317 0.3199 8,107.139
7 Maximum 85.4334 32.6340 30.4446 0.0826 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 8,291.675 0 8,291.675
0 1.9520 0.3379 8,411.027
2 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 126 of 431 ends

433

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 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 Energy 0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 Mobile 6.0242 6.2080 59.3399 0.1360 14.7231 0.0957 14.8189 3.9235 0.0890 4.0125 13,863.02 09 13,863.02
09 0.8487 0.5705 14,054.26
10 Total 17.9463 14.3874 98.7366 0.1874 14.7231 0.9235 15.6466 3.9235 0.9168 4.8403 0.0000 23,838.35 21 23,838.35
21 1.1012 0.7522 24,090.04
75 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 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 Energy 0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 Mobile 6.0242 6.2080 59.3399 0.1360 14.7231 0.0957 14.8189 3.9235 0.0890 4.0125 13,863.02 09 13,863.02
09 0.8487 0.5705 14,054.26
10 Total 17.9463 14.3874 98.7366 0.1874 14.7231 0.9235 15.6466 3.9235 0.9168 4.8403 0.0000 23,838.35 21 23,838.35
21 1.1012 0.7522 24,090.04
75 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 127 of 431 ends

434

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/4/2024 10/22/2024 5 35
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/23/2024 11/14/2024 5 17 3 Grading Grading 11/15/2024 1/27/2025 5 52
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/28/2025 2/1/2027 5 525 5 Paving Paving 2/2/2027 3/22/2027 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/23/2027 5/10/2027 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
ROG NOx 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: 885,638; Residential Outdoor: 295,213; Non-Residential Indoor: 27,225; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,075; Striped Parking Area: 15,504 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 25.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 156
Acres of Paving: 5.81
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 128 of 431 ends

435

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
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
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
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 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 430.00 92.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 16.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 129 of 431 ends

436

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
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 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0447 0.0287 0.4900 1.4300e0030.1677 9.0000e0040.1686 0.0445 8.3000e0040.0453 144.0995 144.0995 3.2600e0033.1600e003145.1216 Total 0.0447 0.0287 0.4900 1.4300e0030.1677 9.0000e0040.1686 0.0445 8.3000e0040.0453 144.0995 144.0995 3.2600e0033.1600e003145.1216 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 130 of 431 ends

437

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
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 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0447 0.0287 0.4900 1.4300e0030.1677 9.0000e0040.1686 0.0445 8.3000e0040.0453 144.0995 144.0995 3.2600e0033.1600e003145.1216 Total 0.0447 0.0287 0.4900 1.4300e0030.1677 9.0000e0040.1686 0.0445 8.3000e0040.0453 144.0995 144.0995 3.2600e0033.1600e003145.1216 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 131 of 431 ends

438

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.4800e0030.2188 0.0843 1.0800e0030.0384 1.2700e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 115.9265 115.9265 3.9500e0030.0168 121.0339 Worker 0.0536 0.0345 0.5880 1.7100e0030.2012 1.0800e0030.2023 0.0534 9.9000e0040.0544 172.9194 172.9194 3.9100e0033.7900e003174.1459 Total 0.0601 0.2532 0.6724 2.7900e0030.2396 2.3500e0030.2420 0.0644 2.2100e0030.0666 288.8459 288.8459 7.8600e0030.0206 295.1798 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 132 of 431 ends

439

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 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.4800e0030.2188 0.0843 1.0800e0030.0384 1.2700e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 115.9265 115.9265 3.9500e0030.0168 121.0339 Worker 0.0536 0.0345 0.5880 1.7100e0030.2012 1.0800e0030.2023 0.0534 9.9000e0040.0544 172.9194 172.9194 3.9100e0033.7900e003174.1459 Total 0.0601 0.2532 0.6724 2.7900e0030.2396 2.3500e0030.2420 0.0644 2.2100e0030.0666 288.8459 288.8459 7.8600e0030.0206 295.1798 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 133 of 431 ends

440

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.4800e0030.2188 0.0843 1.0800e0030.0384 1.2700e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 115.9265 115.9265 3.9500e0030.0168 121.0339 Worker 0.0596 0.0383 0.6534 1.9000e0030.2236 1.2000e0030.2248 0.0593 1.1100e0030.0604 192.1326 192.1326 4.3500e0034.2100e003193.4955 Total 0.0661 0.2571 0.7377 2.9800e0030.2620 2.4700e0030.2644 0.0704 2.3300e0030.0727 308.0591 308.0591 8.3000e0030.0210 314.5294 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 134 of 431 ends

441

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 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.4800e0030.2188 0.0843 1.0800e0030.0384 1.2700e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 115.9265 115.9265 3.9500e0030.0168 121.0339 Worker 0.0596 0.0383 0.6534 1.9000e0030.2236 1.2000e0030.2248 0.0593 1.1100e0030.0604 192.1326 192.1326 4.3500e0034.2100e003193.4955 Total 0.0661 0.2571 0.7377 2.9800e0030.2620 2.4700e0030.2644 0.0704 2.3300e0030.0727 308.0591 308.0591 8.3000e0030.0210 314.5294 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 135 of 431 ends

442

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 1.1309 1.1309 1.0404 1.0404 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 9.2036 1.1309 10.3345 3.6538 1.0404 4.6942 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.3400e0030.2178 0.0831 1.0600e0030.0384 1.2800e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 113.8136 113.8136 3.9700e0030.0165 118.8356 Worker 0.0558 0.0344 0.6087 1.8400e0030.2236 1.1400e0030.2247 0.0593 1.0500e0030.0603 185.5842 185.5842 3.9200e0033.9400e003186.8550 Total 0.0621 0.2522 0.6917 2.9000e0030.2620 2.4200e0030.2644 0.0704 2.2700e0030.0726 299.3977 299.3977 7.8900e0030.0205 305.6906 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 136 of 431 ends

443

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 1.1309 1.1309 1.0404 1.0404 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 9.2036 1.1309 10.3345 3.6538 1.0404 4.6942 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.3400e0030.2178 0.0831 1.0600e0030.0384 1.2800e0030.0397 0.0111 1.2200e0030.0123 113.8136 113.8136 3.9700e0030.0165 118.8356 Worker 0.0558 0.0344 0.6087 1.8400e0030.2236 1.1400e0030.2247 0.0593 1.0500e0030.0603 185.5842 185.5842 3.9200e0033.9400e003186.8550 Total 0.0621 0.2522 0.6917 2.9000e0030.2620 2.4200e0030.2644 0.0704 2.2700e0030.0726 299.3977 299.3977 7.8900e0030.0205 305.6906 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 137 of 431 ends

444

3.5 Building Construction - 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
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0971 3.3389 1.2737 0.0162 0.5891 0.0196 0.6087 0.1696 0.0187 0.1883 1,745.141 2 1,745.141
2 0.0608 0.2533 1,822.146
3 Worker 1.1996 0.7398 13.0862 0.0395 4.8064 0.0246 4.8310 1.2747 0.0226 1.2973 3,990.059 5 3,990.059
5 0.0843 0.0846 4,017.382
8 Total 1.2968 4.0787 14.3599 0.0557 5.3955 0.0441 5.4396 1.4443 0.0413 1.4856 5,735.200 6 5,735.200
6 0.1451 0.3379 5,839.529
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 138 of 431 ends

445

3.5 Building Construction - 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
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0971 3.3389 1.2737 0.0162 0.5891 0.0196 0.6087 0.1696 0.0187 0.1883 1,745.141 2 1,745.141
2 0.0608 0.2533 1,822.146
3 Worker 1.1996 0.7398 13.0862 0.0395 4.8064 0.0246 4.8310 1.2747 0.0226 1.2973 3,990.059 5 3,990.059
5 0.0843 0.0846 4,017.382
8 Total 1.2968 4.0787 14.3599 0.0557 5.3955 0.0441 5.4396 1.4443 0.0413 1.4856 5,735.200 6 5,735.200
6 0.1451 0.3379 5,839.529
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 139 of 431 ends

446

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0952 3.3153 1.2583 0.0159 0.5891 0.0195 0.6086 0.1696 0.0187 0.1883 1,712.412 3 1,712.412
3 0.0609 0.2488 1,788.077
6 Worker 1.1293 0.6719 12.2873 0.0383 4.8064 0.0233 4.8297 1.2747 0.0214 1.2961 3,867.542 9 3,867.542
9 0.0766 0.0798 3,893.242
3 Total 1.2245 3.9872 13.5456 0.0541 5.3955 0.0428 5.4383 1.4443 0.0401 1.4844 5,579.955 2 5,579.955
2 0.1375 0.3286 5,681.319
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 140 of 431 ends

447

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0952 3.3153 1.2583 0.0159 0.5891 0.0195 0.6086 0.1696 0.0187 0.1883 1,712.412 3 1,712.412
3 0.0609 0.2488 1,788.077
6 Worker 1.1293 0.6719 12.2873 0.0383 4.8064 0.0233 4.8297 1.2747 0.0214 1.2961 3,867.542 9 3,867.542
9 0.0766 0.0798 3,893.242
3 Total 1.2245 3.9872 13.5456 0.0541 5.3955 0.0428 5.4383 1.4443 0.0401 1.4844 5,579.955 2 5,579.955
2 0.1375 0.3286 5,681.319
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 141 of 431 ends

448

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0935 3.2911 1.2454 0.0155 0.5891 0.0194 0.6085 0.1696 0.0186 0.1882 1,678.280 4 1,678.280
4 0.0608 0.2441 1,752.547
6 Worker 1.0651 0.6147 11.6076 0.0372 4.8064 0.0219 4.8283 1.2747 0.0201 1.2948 3,758.756 5 3,758.756
5 0.0700 0.0758 3,783.094
1 Total 1.1586 3.9057 12.8531 0.0527 5.3955 0.0413 5.4368 1.4443 0.0387 1.4830 5,437.036 9 5,437.036
9 0.1308 0.3199 5,535.641
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 142 of 431 ends

449

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0935 3.2911 1.2454 0.0155 0.5891 0.0194 0.6085 0.1696 0.0186 0.1882 1,678.280 4 1,678.280
4 0.0608 0.2441 1,752.547
6 Worker 1.0651 0.6147 11.6076 0.0372 4.8064 0.0219 4.8283 1.2747 0.0201 1.2948 3,758.756 5 3,758.756
5 0.0700 0.0758 3,783.094
1 Total 1.1586 3.9057 12.8531 0.0527 5.3955 0.0413 5.4368 1.4443 0.0387 1.4830 5,437.036 9 5,437.036
9 0.1308 0.3199 5,535.641
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 143 of 431 ends

450

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4349 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3501 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0396 0.0229 0.4319 1.3800e0030.1788 8.1000e0040.1797 0.0474 7.5000e0040.0482 139.8607 139.8607 2.6000e0032.8200e003140.7663 Total 0.0396 0.0229 0.4319 1.3800e0030.1788 8.1000e0040.1797 0.0474 7.5000e0040.0482 139.8607 139.8607 2.6000e0032.8200e003140.7663 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 144 of 431 ends

451

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4349 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3501 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0396 0.0229 0.4319 1.3800e0030.1788 8.1000e0040.1797 0.0474 7.5000e0040.0482 139.8607 139.8607 2.6000e0032.8200e003140.7663 Total 0.0396 0.0229 0.4319 1.3800e0030.1788 8.1000e0040.1797 0.0474 7.5000e0040.0482 139.8607 139.8607 2.6000e0032.8200e003140.7663 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 145 of 431 ends

452

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 85.0495 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 85.2204 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2130 0.1229 2.3215 7.4400e0030.9613 4.3700e0030.9657 0.2549 4.0200e0030.2590 751.7513 751.7513 0.0140 0.0152 756.6188 Total 0.2130 0.1229 2.3215 7.4400e0030.9613 4.3700e0030.9657 0.2549 4.0200e0030.2590 751.7513 751.7513 0.0140 0.0152 756.6188 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 146 of 431 ends

453

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 85.0495 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 85.2204 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2130 0.1229 2.3215 7.4400e0030.9613 4.3700e0030.9657 0.2549 4.0200e0030.2590 751.7513 751.7513 0.0140 0.0152 756.6188 Total 0.2130 0.1229 2.3215 7.4400e0030.9613 4.3700e0030.9657 0.2549 4.0200e0030.2590 751.7513 751.7513 0.0140 0.0152 756.6188 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 147 of 431 ends

454

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 6.0242 6.2080 59.3399 0.1360 14.7231 0.0957 14.8189 3.9235 0.0890 4.0125 13,863.02 09 13,863.02
09 0.8487 0.5705 14,054.26
10 Unmitigated 6.0242 6.2080 59.3399 0.1360 14.7231 0.0957 14.8189 3.9235 0.0890 4.0125 13,863.02 09 13,863.02
09 0.8487 0.5705 14,054.26
10 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,983.98 1,983.98 1983.98 6,643,339 6,643,339 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 186.00 186.00 186.00 343,993 343,993
Total 2,169.98 2,169.98 2,169.98 6,987,331 6,987,331
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.55 5.53 8.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 148 of 431 ends

455
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 Strip Mall 15.00 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 General Office Building 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 Parking Lot 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657 Strip Mall 0.541709 0.062136 0.185590 0.128486 0.023783 0.006533 0.012157 0.009216 0.000814 0.000497 0.024669 0.000753 0.003657

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

0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 149 of 431 ends

456

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
17219.2 0.1857 1.5869 0.6753 0.0101 0.1283 0.1283 0.1283 0.1283 2,025.788 3 2,025.788
3 0.0388 0.0371 2,037.826
6 General Office
Building
132.971 1.4300e0030.0130 0.0110 8.0000e0059.9000e0049.9000e0049.9000e0049.9000e00415.6437 15.6437 3.0000e0042.9000e00415.7366 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 Strip Mall 24.1096 2.6000e0042.3600e0031.9900e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0042.8364 2.8364 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.8533 Total 0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 150 of 431 ends

457

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

17.2192 0.1857 1.5869 0.6753 0.0101 0.1283 0.1283 0.1283 0.1283 2,025.788 3 2,025.788
3 0.0388 0.0371 2,037.826
6 General Office
Building

0.132971 1.4300e0030.0130 0.0110 8.0000e0059.9000e0049.9000e0049.9000e0049.9000e00415.6437 15.6437 3.0000e0042.9000e00415.7366 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 Strip Mall 0.0241096 2.6000e0042.3600e0031.9900e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0042.8364 2.8364 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.8533 Total 0.1874 1.6023 0.6882 0.0102 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 0.1295 2,044.268 4 2,044.268
4 0.0392 0.0375 2,056.416
5 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 151 of 431 ends

458
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
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 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 Unmitigated 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 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

0.8155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.1105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.7211 6.1617 2.6220 0.0393 0.4982 0.4982 0.4982 0.4982 0.0000 7,866.000 0 7,866.000
0 0.1508 0.1442 7,912.743
7 Landscaping 1.0877 0.4155 36.0865 1.9100e0030.2001 0.2001 0.2001 0.2001 65.0627 65.0627 0.0625 66.6263 Total 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 152 of 431 ends

459
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.8155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.1105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.7211 6.1617 2.6220 0.0393 0.4982 0.4982 0.4982 0.4982 0.0000 7,866.000 0 7,866.000
0 0.1508 0.1442 7,912.743
7 Landscaping 1.0877 0.4155 36.0865 1.9100e0030.2001 0.2001 0.2001 0.2001 65.0627 65.0627 0.0625 66.6263 Total 11.7347 6.5772 38.7085 0.0412 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.6983 0.0000 7,931.062 7 7,931.062
7 0.2133 0.1442 7,979.370
0 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 153 of 431 ends

460

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 10:00 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 154 of 431 ends

461
JPI Fontana Apartments
South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths." Grading -
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment regarding "Underestimated Number of Saturday and Sunday Operational Vehicle Trips." Woodstoves - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Energy Use - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Natural Gas Energy Values." Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 9:58 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 155 of 431 ends

462
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding "Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure." Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

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

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 525.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 52.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2026 5/10/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/20/2026 2/1/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/1/2024 10/22/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/26/2024 1/27/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/17/2026 3/22/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/15/2024 11/14/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/18/2026 3/23/2027 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/27/2024 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/16/2024 11/15/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/21/2026 2/2/2027
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/2/2024 10/23/2024 tblEnergyUse NT24E 3,054.10 3,525.70
tblEnergyUse T24E 164.47 3,234.18
tblFireplaces NumberWood 21.85 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 437,000.00 437,352.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 9:58 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 156 of 431 ends

463

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 429.00 430.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 15.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 8.50
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 5.53
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 14.55
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 46.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 46.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 46.50
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 21.85 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 21.85 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 9:58 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 157 of 431 ends

464

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 3.2874 32.6485 28.4014 0.0649 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 6,306.878 6 6,306.878
6 1.9520 0.0213 6,362.030
7 2025 2.9665 28.2091 29.2558 0.0804 9.4656 1.1333 10.5989 3.7241 1.0427 4.7668 0.0000 8,063.847 7 8,063.847
7 1.9511 0.3437 8,184.937
2 2026 2.6611 16.6840 28.5213 0.0789 5.3955 0.5705 5.9659 1.4443 0.5364 1.9807 0.0000 7,915.874 5 7,915.874
5 0.7395 0.3340 8,033.902
0 2027 85.4480 16.5961 27.8960 0.0776 5.3955 0.5689 5.9644 1.4443 0.5350 1.9793 0.0000 7,779.318 7 7,779.318
7 0.7328 0.3251 7,894.503
7 Maximum 85.4480 32.6485 29.2558 0.0804 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 8,063.847 7 8,063.847
7 1.9520 0.3437 8,184.937
2 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 9:58 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 158 of 431 ends

465

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 3.2874 32.6485 28.4014 0.0649 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 6,306.878 6 6,306.878
6 1.9520 0.0213 6,362.030
7 2025 2.9665 28.2091 29.2558 0.0804 9.4656 1.1333 10.5989 3.7241 1.0427 4.7668 0.0000 8,063.847 7 8,063.847
7 1.9511 0.3437 8,184.937
2 2026 2.6611 16.6840 28.5213 0.0789 5.3955 0.5705 5.9659 1.4443 0.5364 1.9807 0.0000 7,915.874 5 7,915.874
5 0.7395 0.3340 8,033.902
0 2027 85.4480 16.5961 27.8960 0.0776 5.3955 0.5689 5.9644 1.4443 0.5350 1.9793 0.0000 7,779.318 7 7,779.318
7 0.7328 0.3251 7,894.503
7 Maximum 85.4480 32.6485 29.2558 0.0804 19.8966 1.3379 21.1283 10.1669 1.2309 11.3001 0.0000 8,063.847 7 8,063.847
7 1.9520 0.3437 8,184.937
2 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 33 Date: 11/27/2023 9:58 PM JPI Fontana Apartments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Page 159 of 431 ends

Fontana City CouncilMay 28, 2024

Fontana City Council
May 28, 2024