Appendix D_AQIA and HRA.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, October 7, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Moreno Valley Business Park –
Phase II

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]

Alyssa Barnett
[email protected]

JANUARY 17, 2022

14397-05 AQ Report
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1 ES.2 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 5 2 AIR QUALITY SETTING ................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) ........................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Regional Climate ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Wind Patterns and Project Location ........................................................................................... 10

2.4 Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Existing Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 18

2.6 Regional Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 21

2.7 Local Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21

2.8 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................... 22

2.9 Regional Air Quality Improvement ............................................................................................. 26 3 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT .................................................................................................. 38

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 38

3.2 Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................ 38

3.3 Models Employed To Analyze Air Quality ................................................................................... 39

3.4 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................... 39

3.5 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 42

3.6 Localized Significance .................................................................................................................. 46

3.7 C
onstruction-Source Emissions LST Analysis .............................................................................. 51

3.8 Operational-Source Emissions LST Analysis ................................................................................ 52

3.9 CO “Hot Spot” Analysis ............................................................................................................... 54

3.10 AQMP .......................................................................................................................................... 56

3.11 Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................... 58

3.12 Odors ........................................................................................................................................... 59

3.13 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 60 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 63 5 CERTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 67

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
ii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2.1: STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.2: CALEEMOD MANUFACTURING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.3: CALEEMOD WAREHOUSING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.4: CALEEMOD HIGH-CUBE COLD STORAGE OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.5: SCAQMD AMICUS BRIEF

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 6 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 7 EXHIBIT 2-A: DPM AND DIESEL VEHICLE MILES TREND ........................................................................ 35 EXHIBIT 3-A: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS .................................................................................. 50

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS ..................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2) .................................................................... 19 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (2 OF 2) .................................................................... 20 TABLE 2-3: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SCAB ......................................... 21 TABLE 2-4: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2018-2020 .................................... 22 TABLE 2-5: SCAB O3 TREND ................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 2-6: SCAB AVERAGE 24-HOUR CONCENTRATION PM10 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD)1 ................................................................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 2-7: SCAB ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM10 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD)1 . 29 TABLE 2-8: SCAB 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM2.5 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD)1 ................................................................................................................................................. 30 TABLE 2-9: SCAB ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM2.5 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD)1 . 30 TABLE 2-10: SCAB 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CO TREND1 ................................................... 32 TABLE 2-11: SCAB 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION NO2 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD) 33 TABLE 2-12: SCAB 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION NO2 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD) ... 33 TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ..................................................... 38 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................ 40 TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION DURATION .............................................................................................. 40 TABLE 3-4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................... 41 TABLE 3-5: OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY – WITHOUT MITIGATION ..................... 42 TABLE 3-6: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX .............................................................................................. 44 TABLE 3-7: TRUCK FLEET MIX ............................................................................................................. 44 TABLE 3-8: SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ................................................................ 46 TABLE 3-9: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS .......................... 51 TABLE 3-10: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE EMISSIONS – WITHOUT MITIGATION ..................... 52 TABLE 3-11: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ........................... 53 TABLE 3-12: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS – WITHOUT MITIGATION ............ 54 Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
iii
TABLE 3-13: CO MODEL RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 54 TABLE 3-14: TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................................... 55 Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
% Percent
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
(1) Reference
µg/m3 Microgram per Cubic Meter
1992 CO Plan 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide 1993 CEQA Handbook SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) 2016-2040 RTP/SCS 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
AB 2595 California Clean Air Act
ADT Average Daily Trips
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BC Black Carbon
Brief Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch Case
C2Cl4 Perchloroethylene
C4H6 1,3-butadiene
C6H6 Benzene
C2H3Cl Vinyl Chloride
C2H4O Acetaldehyde
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines
CH2O Formaldehyde
City City of Moreno Valley
CO Carbon Monoxide
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
v
COH Coefficient of Haze
COHb Carboxyhemoglobin
Cr(VI) Chromium
CTP Clean Truck Program
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
EC Elemental Carbon
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMissions FACtor Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETW Equivalent Test Weight
FAR Floor Area Ratio
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HDT Heavy Duty Trucks
HHDT Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks
HI Hazard Index
hp Horsepower
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
lbs Pounds
lbs/day Pounds Per Day
LDA Light Duty Auto
LDT1/LDT2 Light- Duty Trucks
LHDT1/LHDT2 Light- Heavy-Duty Trucks
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LST Methodology Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MCY Motorcycles
MDV Medium-Duty Vehicles
MHDT Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks
MICR Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
MM Mitigation Measures
mph Miles Per Hour
MWELO California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
vi
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
O2 Oxygen
O3 Ozone
O2 Deficiency Chronic Hypoxemia
OBD-II On-Board Diagnostic
ODC Ozone Depleting Compounds
Pb Lead
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less
PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less POLA Port of Los Angeles
POLB Port of Long Beach
ppm Parts Per Million
Project Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II
RECLAIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
RFG-2 Reformulated Gasoline Regulation
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
sf Square Feet
SIPs State Implementation Plans
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO4 Sulfates
SOX Sulfur Oxides
SoCalGas The Southern California Gas Company
SR-60 State Route 60
SRA Source Receptor Area
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
Title 24 California Building Code
TITLE I Non-Attainment Provisions
TITLE II Mobile Sources Provisions
TSF Thousand Square Feet
UFP Ultrafine Particles
URBEMIS URBan EMISsions
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
vii
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
vph Vehicles Per Hour
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 S UMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 3 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (1).

Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential air quality impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures (MM) described below.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Regional Construction Emissions 3.4 Less Than Significant n/a Localized Construction Emissions 3.7 Less Than Significant n/a Regional Operational Emissions 3.5 Less Than Significant n/a Localized Operational Emissions 3.8 Less Than Significant n/a CO “Hot Spot” Analysis 3.9 Less Than Significant n/a
Air Quality Management Plan 3.10 Less Than Significant n/a Sensitive Receptors 3.11 Less Than Significant n/a
Odors 3.12 Less Than Significant n/a
Cumulative Impacts 3.13 Less Than Significant n/a
ES.2 R EGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
There are numerous requirements that development projects must comply with by law, and that were put in place by federal, State, and local regulatory agencies for the improvement of air quality.

Any operation or activity that might cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, or other forms of air pollution, which can cause damage to human health, vegetation, or Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
2 other forms of property, or can cause excessive soiling on any other parcel shall conform to the requirements of the SCAQMD.

SCAQMD RULES
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project are described below.

SCAQMD RULE 401
A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

SCAQMD
RULE 402
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

Odor Emissions. All uses shall be operated in a manner such that no offensive odor is perceptible at or beyond the property line of that use.

SCAQMD RULE 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human- made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activi ty or human- made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities.

Dust Control, Operations. Any operation or activity that might cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, or other forms of air pollution, which can cause damage to human health, vegetation, or other forms of property, or can cause excessive soiling on any other parcel, shall conform to the requirements of the SCAQMD.

SCAQMD
RULE 1113
This rule serves to limit the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects.

SCAQMD
RULE 1301
This rule is intended to provide that pre-construction review requirements to ensure that new or relocated facilities do not interfere with progress in attainment of the National Ambient Air Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
3 Quality Standards (NAAQS), while future economic growth within the SCAQMD is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air contaminants or their precur sors. Rule 1301 also limits emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

SCAQMD
RULE 2305
The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, on May 7, 2021. Owners and operators associated with warehouses 100,000 square feet (sf) or larger are required to directly reduce nitrogen oxides (NO
X) and particulate matter emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities.

Although the Project would comply with the above regulatory requirements, it should be noted that emission reductions associated with Rules 401, 402, 1301, and 2305 cannot be quantified in the California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod) and are therefore not reflected in the emissions presented herein. Conversely, Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (2) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3) can be modeled in CalEEMod. As such, credit for Rule 403 and Rule 1113 have been taken in the analysis.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
4 This page intentionally left blank

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
5 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the AQIA prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II (Project). The purpose of this AQIA is to evaluate the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the Project and recommend measures to mitigate impacts considered potentially significant in comparison to thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

1.1 S ITE LOCATION
The proposed project is located northerly of State Route 60 ( SR-60) at Heacock Street in the northwesterly portion of the City of Moreno Valley , in western Riverside County. The Project considered herein comprises approximately 9.98 acres within Specific Plan No. 205, located immediately southeasterly of Ironwood Avenue at Heacock Street, as shown on Exhibit 1-A.

1.2 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is proposed to consist of a single 220,390 sf industrial building (Building 5) which will be evaluated assuming 154,270 sf of warehousing use (70% of the overall sf), 33,060 sf of manufacturing use (15% of the overall sf), and 33,060 sf of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (15% of the overall sf) for a total of 220,390 sf of industrial uses. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-B.

It is expected that the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. This analysis includes a conservative assumption of on- site Project-related emission sources for potential future tenants, including architectural coatings, consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment, natural gas, electricity, mobile operations, and on-site cargo handling equipment. This analysis is intended to describe air quality impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project site. To present a conservative approach, this report assumes the Project would operate 24-hours daily for seven days per week.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
6 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Briar Knoll Pl
"' Ironwood Ave j ,..
,H
G.:lty Ct C
J
'!?
lig ht -
',!
~
'"'lore~
V■ U
Pla"3
u
CJ
.. " 0
;J
q
M~ n
Va:ley
Pl
iii
-" 0
g
"' J:
1tl33 ft
Gr"'lory Ln
lm ll\', Od Ave
1 ------.... --1
I
I
J Site
I
I t
I I
L_ _______ J
oO
Gro~enln
More no Valley Fwy
Posla l A
iii
C:
s:
qi
c
.!'l
z
~
Cl
SI
:z
Will' l n
Dllll
-0
Q
2'
~
Sunn~mead Blvd
soun:es: Hr~ HERE, 6arm.in, Intermap,
muement P corp_, 6£BCO, US6S, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, 6€oBase, 16N, Xadaster N~ ordnance
.survey, £sri Japan, METl, Esri cmno (Hong KongJ,
(cJ openstreetMap contributors, and the GIS
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
7 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

e e o N l:J E-

MONUMENT SIGN
1-
J N.A.P.
--+ t- -t-
-I~ I I
in - BUILDING
0 co 220,390 SF
CD
I - I -I ----+-
I-
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
8 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
9 2 AIR QUALITY SETTING
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions in the Project area and region.

2.1 S OUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB)
The Project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD (5). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis -Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745 -square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.

2.2 R EGIONAL CLIMATE
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.

Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO
2) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity.

The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71% along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
10 Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three -quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On th e shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high -pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion -type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates no cturnal radiation inversions.

These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NO
X a nd CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

2.3 W IND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
11 low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

2.4 C RITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Criteria pollutants, their typical sources, and health effects are identified below (6):

TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
CO CO is a colorless, odorless gas
produced by the incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing
fuels, such as gasoline or wood.

CO concentrations tend to be the
highest during the winter
morning, when little to no wind
and surface-based inversions trap
the pollutant at ground levels.

Because CO is emitted directly
from internal combustion
engines, unlike ozone (O
3), motor
vehicles operating at slow speeds
are the primary source of CO in
the SCAB. The highest ambient
CO concentrations are generally
found near congested
transportation corridors and
intersections.

Any source that
burns fuel such as
automobiles, trucks,
heavy construction
equipment, farming
equipment and
residential heating.

Individuals with a deficient
blood supply to the heart are
the most susceptible to the
adverse effects of CO
exposure. The effects
observed include earlier
onset of chest pain with
exercise, and
electrocardiograph changes
indicative of decreased
oxygen (O
2) supply to the
heart. Inhaled CO has no
direct toxic effect on the
lungs but exerts its effect on
tissues by interfering with O
2 transport and competing with
O2 to combine with
hemoglobin present in the
blood to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb).

Hence, conditions with an
increased demand for O
2 supply can be adversely
affected by exposure to CO.

Individuals most at risk
include fetuses, patients with
diseases involving heart and
blood vessels, and patients
with chronic hypoxemia (O
2 deficiency) as seen at high
altitudes.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
12 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects SO2 SO2 is a colorless, extremely
irritating gas or liquid. It enters
the atmosphere as a pollutant
mainly as a result of burning high
sulfur-content fuel oils and coal
and from chemical processes
occurring at chemical plants and
refineries. When SO
2 oxidizes in
the atmosphere, it forms SO4.

Collectively, these pollutants are
referred to as sulfur oxides (SO
X).

Coal or oil burning
power plants and
industries,
refineries, diesel
engines
A few minutes of exposure to
low levels of SO
2 can result in
airway constriction in some
asthmatics, all of whom are
sensitive to its effects. In
asthmatics, increase in
resistance to air flow, as well
as reduction in breathing
capacity leading to severe
breathing difficulties, are
observed after acute
exposure to SO

2. In contrast,
healthy individuals do not
exhibit similar acute
responses even after
exposure to higher
concentrations of SO

2. Animal studies suggest that
despite SO2 being a
respiratory irritant, it does
not cause substantial lung
injury at ambient
concentrations. However,
very high levels of exposure
can cause lung edema (fluid
accumulation), lung tissue
damage, and sloughing off of
cells lining the respiratory
tract.

Some population-based
studies indicate that the
mortality and morbidity
effects associated with fine
particles show a similar
association with ambient SO
2 levels. In these studies,
efforts to separate the effects
of SO
2 from those of fine
particles have not been
successful. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants
act synergistically, or one
pollutant alone is the
predominant factor.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
13 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects NOX NOX consist of nitric oxide (NO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) and are
formed when nitrogen (N2)
combines with O2. Their lifespan
in the atmosphere ranges from
one to seven days for nitric oxide
and nitrogen dioxide, to 170
years for nitrous oxide. NOX is
typically created during
combustion processes and are
major contributors to smog
formation and acid deposition.

NO
2 is a criteria air pollutant and
may result in numerous adverse
health effects; it absorbs blue
light, resulting in a brownish-red
cast to the atmosphere and
reduced visibility. Of the seven
types of NO
X compounds, NO2 is
the most abundant in the
atmosphere. As ambient
concentrations of NO2 are related
to traffic density, commuters in
heavy traffic may be exposed to
higher concentrations of NO
2 than those indicated by regional
monitoring station.

Any source that
burns fuel such as
automobiles, trucks,
heavy construction
equipment, farming
equipment and
residential heating.

Population-based studies
suggest that an increase in
acute respiratory illness,
including infections and
respiratory symptoms in
children (not infants), is
associated with long-term
exposure to NO
2 at levels
found in homes with gas
stoves, which are higher than
ambient levels found in
Southern California. Increase
in resistance to air flow and
airway contraction is
observed after short-term
exposure to NO
2 in healthy
subjects. Larger decreases in
lung functions are observed
in individuals with asthma or
chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (e.g.,
chronic bronchitis,
emphysema) than in healthy
individuals, indicating a
greater susceptibility of these
sub-groups.

In animals, exposure to levels
of NO2 considerably higher
than ambient concentrations
result in increased
susceptibility to infections,
possibly due to the observed
changes in cells involved in
maintaining immune
functions. The severity of
lung tissue damage
associated with high levels of
O
3 exposure increases when
animals are exposed to a
combination of O3 and NO2.

O3 O3 is a highly reactive and
unstable gas that is formed when
VOCs and NO
X, both byproducts
of internal combustion engine
exhaust, undergo slow
photochemical reactions in the
presence of sunlight. O
3 concentrations are generally
highest during the summer
Formed when
reactive organic
gases (ROG)
and NOX
react in the
presence of
sunlight. ROG
sources
include any source
Individuals exercising
outdoors, children, and
people with preexisting lung
disease, such as asthma and
chronic pulmonary lung
disease, are considered to be
the most susceptible sub-
groups for O
3 effects. Short-
term exposure (lasting for a
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
14 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects months when direct sunlight,
light wind, and warm
temperature conditions are
favorable to the formation of this
pollutant.
that burns fuels,
(e.g., gasoline,
natural gas, wood,
oil) solvents,
petroleum
processing and
storage and
pesticides.
few hours) to O3 at levels
typically observed in
Southern California can result
in breathing pattern changes,
reduction of breathing
capacity, increased
susceptibility to infections,
inflammation of the lung
tissue, and some
immunological changes.

Elevated O
3 levels are
associated with increased
school absences. In recent
years, a correlation between
elevated ambient O
3 levels
and increases in daily hospital
admission rates, as well as
mortality, has also been
reported. An increased risk
for asthma has been found in
children who participate in
multiple outdoor sports and
reside in communities with
high O
3 levels.

O3 exposure under exercising
conditions is known to
increase the severity of the
responses described above.

Animal studies suggest that
exposure to a combination of
pollutants that includes O
3 may be more toxic than
exposure to O3 alone.

Although lung volume and
resistance changes observed
after a single exposure
diminish with repeated
exposures, biochemical and
cellular changes appear to
persist, which can lead to
subsequent lung structural
changes.

Particulate Matter PM10: A major air pollutant
consisting of tiny solid or liquid
particles of soot, dust, smoke,
fumes, and aerosols. Particulate
matter pollution is a major cause
of reduce visibility (haze) which is
caused by the scattering of light
Sources of PM10
include road dust,
windblown dust and
construction. Also
formed from other
pollutants (acid
rain, NOX, SOX,
A consistent correlation
between elevated ambient
fine particulate matter (PM
10 and PM2.5) levels and an
increase in mortality rates,
respiratory infections,
number and severity of
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
15 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects and consequently the significant
reduction air clarity. The size of
the particles (10 microns or
smaller, about 0.0004 inches or
less) allows them to easily enter
the lungs where they may be
deposited, resulting in adverse
health effects. Additionally, it
should be noted that PM
10 is
considered a criteria air
pollutant.

PM2.5: A similar air pollutant to
PM10 consisting of tiny solid or
liquid particles which are 2.5
microns or smaller (which is often
referred to as fine particles).

These particles are formed in the
atmosphere from primary
gaseous emissions that include
SO
4 formed from SO2 release
from power plants and industrial
facilities and nitrates that are
formed from NO
X release from
power plants, automobiles, and
other types of combustion
sources. The chemical
composition of fine particles
highly depends on location, time
of year, and weather conditions.

2.5 is a criteria air pollutant.
organics).

Incomplete
combustion of any
fuel.

PM2.5 comes from
fuel combustion in
motor vehicles,
equipment, and
industrial sources,
residential and
agricultural
burning. Also
formed from
reaction of other
pollutants (acid
rain, NO

X, SOX,
organics).
asthma attacks and the
number of hospital
admissions has been
observed in different parts of
the United States and various
areas around the world. In
recent years, some studies
have reported an association
between long-term exposure
to air pollution dominated by
fine particles and increased
mortality, reduction in
lifespan, and an increased
mortality from lung cancer.

Daily fluctuations in PM2.5
concentration levels have
also been related to hospital
admissions for acute
respiratory conditions in
children, to school and
kindergarten absences, to a
decrease in respiratory lung
volumes in normal children,
and to increased medication
use in children and adults
with asthma. Recent studies
show lung function growth in
children is reduced with long
term exposure to particulate
matter.

The elderly, people with pre-
existing respiratory or
cardiovascular disease, and
children appear to be more
susceptible to the effects of
high levels of PM
10 and PM2.5.

VOC VOCs are hydrocarbon
compounds (any compound
containing various combinations
of hydrogen and carbon atoms)
that exist in the ambient air.

VOCs contribute to the formation
of smog through atmospheric
photochemical reactions and/or
may be toxic. Compounds of
carbon (also known as organic
compounds) have different levels
of reactivity; that is, they do not
react at the same speed or do not
Organic chemicals
are widely used as
ingredients in
household
products. Paints,
varnishes, and wax
all contain organic
solvents, as do
many cleaning,
disinfecting,
cosmetic,
degreasing and
hobby products.

Breathing VOCs can irritate
the eyes, nose, and throat,
can cause difficulty breathing
and nausea, and can damage
the central nervous system as
well as other organs. Some
VOCs can cause cancer. Not
all VOCs have all these health
effects, though many have
several.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
16 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects form O3 to the same extent when
exposed to photochemical
processes. VOCs often have an
odor, and some examples include
gasoline, alcohol, and the
solvents used in paints.

Exceptions to the VOC
designation include CO, carbon
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate. VOCs are
a criteria pollutant since they are
a precursor to O
3, which is a
criteria pollutant. The terms VOC
and ROG (see below)
interchangeably.

Fuels are made up
of organic
chemicals. All of
these products can
release organic
compounds while
you are using them,
and, to some
degree, when they
are stored.

ROG Similar to VOC, ROGs are also
precursors in forming O3 and
consist of compounds containing
methane, ethane, propane,
butane, and longer chain
hydrocarbons, which are typically
the result of some type of
combustion/decomposition
process. Smog is formed when
ROG and NO
X react in the
presence of sunlight. ROGs are a
criteria pollutant since they are a
precursor to O
3, which is a
criteria pollutant. The terms ROG
and VOC (see previous)
interchangeably.

Sources similar to
VOCs.

Health effects similar to
VOCs.

Lead (Pb) Pb is a heavy metal that is highly
persistent in the environment
and is considered a criteria
pollutant. In the past, the primary
source of Pb in the air was
emissions from vehicles burning
leaded gasoline. The major
sources of Pb emissions are ore
and metals processing,
particularly Pb smelters, and
piston-engine aircraft operating
on leaded aviation gasoline.

Other stationary sources include
waste incinerators, utilities, and
lead-acid battery manufacturers.

It should be noted that the
Project does not include
Metal smelters,
resource recovery,
leaded gasoline,
deterioration of Pb
paint.

Fetuses, infants, and children
are more sensitive than
others to the adverse effects
of Pb exposure. Exposure to
low levels of Pb can adversely
affect the development and
function of the central
nervous system, leading to
learning disorders,
distractibility, inability to
follow simple commands, and
lower intelligence quotient. In
adults, increased Pb levels are
associated with increased
blood pressure.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
17 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects operational activities such as
metal processing or Pb acid
battery manufacturing. As such,
the Project is not anticipated to
generate a quantifiable amount
of Pb emissions.

Pb poisoning can cause
anemia, lethargy, seizures,
and death; although it
appears that there are no
direct effects of Pb on the
respiratory system. Pb can be
stored in the bone from early
age environmental exposure,
and elevated blood Pb levels
can occur due to breakdown
of bone tissue during
pregnancy, hyperthyroidism
(increased secretion of
hormones from the thyroid
gland) and osteoporosis
(breakdown of bony tissue).

Fetuses and breast-fed babies
can be exposed to higher
levels of Pb because of
previous environmental Pb
exposure of their mothers.

Odor Odor means the perception
experienced by a person when
one or more chemical substances
in the air come into contact with
the human olfactory nerves (7).

Odors can come
from many sources
including animals,
human activities,
industry, natures,
and vehicles.

Offensive odors can
potentially affect human
health in several ways. First,
odorant compounds can
irritate the eye, nose, and
throat, which can reduce
respiratory volume. Second,
studies have shown that the
VOCs that cause odors can
stimulate sensory nerves to
cause neurochemical changes
that might influence health,
for instance, by
compromising the immune
system. Finally, unpleasant
odors can trigger memories
or attitudes linked to
unpleasant odors, causing
cognitive and emotional
effects such as stress.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
18 2.5 E XISTING AIR QUALITY
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an ade quate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect are shown in Table 2-2 (8).

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards. At the time of this AQIA, the most recent state and federal standards were updated by CARB on May 4, 2016, as presented in Table 2-2. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the state if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O 3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2
(1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 do not exceed standards. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. It should be noted that the three -year period is presented for informational purposes and is not the basis for how the State assigns attainment status. Attainment status for a pollutant means that the SCAQMD meets the standards set by the EPA or the California EPA (CalEPA). Conversely, nonattainment means that an area has monitored air quality that does not meet the NAAQS or CAAQS standards. In order to improve air quality in nonattainment areas, CARB has implemented a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP outlines the measures that the state will take to improve air quality. Once nonattainment areas meet the standards and additional redesignation requirements, the EPA will designate the area as a maintenance area (9).

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
19 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2)
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging California Standards ' National Standards 2
Pollutant Time Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary "·" Secondary •·• Method 7 1 Hour 0.09 ppm ( 180 µg/m 3)
Ultraviolet - Same as Ultraviolet
Ozone (O,)8
Photometry Primary Standard Photometry
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
Respirable 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µgin,' Inertial Separation Particulate Gravimetric or Same as and Gravimetric
Annual Beta Attenuation Primary Standard Analysis Matter (PM10)9 Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 -
Fine 24 Hour 35 µglm 3 Same as
Particulate - - Primary Standard Inertial Separation
Matter
and Gravimetric
Annual 12 µgtm" Gravimetric or 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Analysis (PM2.5)9 Arithmetic Mean Beta Attenuation
1 Hour 20 ppm (2.3 mglm 3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) -
Carbon Non-Dispersive Non-Dispersive
Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mglm 3) Infrared Photometry 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) - Infrared Photometry (CO) (NDIR) (NDIR)
8 Hour 6 ppm (7 mglm 3) (Lake Tahoe ) - -
Nitrogen 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3) 100 ppb (188 µgim") - Dioxide Gas Phase Gas Phase
(NO2)'° Annual

0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
Chemiluminescence

0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Same as Chemiluminescence
Arithmetic Mean Primary Standard
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 75 ppb (196 µglm 3) -

0.5 ppm Ultraviolet
Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour - - (1300 µg/m3) F1ourescence ; Ultraviolet (SO2) 11 Fluorescence 0.14 ppm
Spectrophotometry
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) (for certain areas) 11 - (Pararosan iline Method)
Annual 0.030 ppm
Arithmetic Mean - (for certain areas) 11 -
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 - -
Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 High Volume
Lead12•1' - Atomic Absorption (for certain areas )12 Sampler and Atomic Same as Absorption
Rolling 3-Month Primary Standard
Average - 0.1 5 µglm 3
Visibility Beta Attenua tion and
Reducing 8 Hour See footnote 14 Transmittance No
Particles14 through Filter Tape
Sulfates 25 µg/m3
National
24 Hour Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.Q3 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Sulfide Fluorescence Standards
Vinyl
24 Hour 0.Q1 ppm (26 µglm") Gas
Chloride12 Chromatography
See footnotes on next page ...

For more information please call ARB-PIO ar (916) 322-2990 Californi a Air Resource s Board (5/4/16) Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
20 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (2 OF 2)
I. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (I and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate watter (PMI0 , PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded . All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. Nationa l standards (otl1er Iii.an ozone, particulate ni.atter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a yeac. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year~ averaged ovei three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PMIO. tl1e 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 ftg/w3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations , averaged over three years, are equal to or less than tl1e standard. Contact the U.S.

EPA for further clarification and current natiori.al policies. 3 _ Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthes es are based upon a reference temperamre of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measuren,ents of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperamre of25 °C and a reference pressure of 760 torr, ppm in tl,i.s table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent weasnren,ent method wltich can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard ni.ay be used.

S. National Primary Standards: T11e levels of air quality necessary. with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any kt1o"n or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An "equivaleut method" of measurement way be used but must have a "corisistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. On October I, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm_

9. On December 14. 2012, the national annual PM2.5 prini.ary standard was lowered from 15 ftg/m3 to 12.0 ftg/m3. TI1e existing nationa.l 24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 ftg/w3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 ftg/w3. The existing 24-hour PMIO standards (prinlary and secondary) of ISO µg/rrf also were retained. The form of the annual pri.mary and secondary standards is the annual wean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the I-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the anutk'U 98th perceritile of the I-hour daily ni.axiwuw concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national I-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national I-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm_ In tl,i.s case, tl1e 11ational standard of JOO ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On Jtu1e 2, 2010, a new I-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and anunal prinlary standards were revoked. To attain tl1e I-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the aruitk1.l 99th percentile of the I-hour daily mmcim,un concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. T11e 1971 SO2 nation.'tl staodards (24-hour and aruiual) r=i.ain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard. except that in areas desigii.ated nonattaimnent for the 1971 standards, tlie 1971 standards reriJ.ain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the I-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb ). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the !-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case. the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12. The ARB Ii.as ide,1tified lead and viuyl chloride as 'toxic air con.ta.min.ants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse he.'tltl1 effects determined. These actions allow for tl1e implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. Tue natio11al standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. Tue 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/w3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for tl1e 2008 standard, except tlrnt in areas desiguated nonattaiiunent for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains i,1 effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain tl1e 2008 standard are approved,

14. In 1989, the ARB converted bot!, tl1e general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the L-.ke Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, whicl1 are "extinction of0 .23 per kilometer'' and "extinction of0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
for more information please caU ARB-PIO at (916) 322-2990 California Air Resoul'Ces Board (5/4/16) Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
21 2.6 R EGIONAL AIR QUALITY
Air pollution contributes to a wide variety of adverse health effects. The EPA has established NAAQS for six of the most common air pollutants: CO, Pb, O3, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), NO2, and SO 2 which are known as criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single -pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites throughout the air district (10). On February 21, 2019, CARB posted the 2018 amendments to the state and national area designations. See Table 2 -3 for attainment designations for the SCAB (11). Appendix 2.1 provides geographic representation of the state and federal attainment status for applicable criteria pollutants within the SCAB.

TABLE 2-3: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SCAB Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation O3 – 1-hour standard Nonattainment --
O3 – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Pb1 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Note: See Appendix 2.1 for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the SCAB “-“ = The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005.

2.7 L OCAL AIR QUALITY
The SCAQMD has designated general forecast areas and air monitoring areas (referred to as Source Receptor Areas [SRA]) throughout the district in order to provide Southern California residents about the air quality conditions. The Project site is located within the Perris Valley area (SRA 24). The Perris Valley monitoring station is located approximately 10.9 miles north of the Project site and reports air quality statistics for O3 and PM10. The Metropolitan Riverside County monitoring station which is located 10.5 miles northwest of the Project site in SRA 23, records air quality data for CO, NO 2, and PM 2.5. It should be noted that data from Metropolitan Riverside County monitoring station was utilized in lieu of the Perris Valley monitoring station only in instances where data was not available.

The most recent three (3) years of data available is shown on Table 2-4 and identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded for the study area, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the Development S ite. Data for O 3, CO, NO2, PM10,
and PM2.5 for 2018 through 2020 was obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables (12).

1 The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
22 Additionally, data for SO 2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the SCAB and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations.

TABLE 2-4: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2018-2020 Pollutant Standard Year
2018 2019 2020
O3
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.117 0. 118 0.125 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.103 0. 095 0.106 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 31 26 34 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 67 64 74 CO
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 2.2 1.5 1.9 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 2.0 1.2 1.4 NO2
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.055 0.056 0.066 Annual Federal Standard Design Value 0.014 0. 014 0.014 PM10
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 150 µg/m3 64 97 77 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 29.7 25. 3 35.9 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 3 4 6 PM2.5
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 35 µg/m3 50.70 46.70 41.00 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 12.41 11.13 12.63 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 2 4 4 ppm = Parts Per Million
µg/m3 = Microgram per Cubic Meter
Source: Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 was obtained from SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables.

2.8 R EGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.8.1 F EDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O 3, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and Pb (13). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
23 The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (14) . The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement SIPs for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards would be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet in terim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (15) (16). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3,
NO2, SO 2, PM 10, CO, PM 2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 t o include an additional standard for O 3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM 2.5. Table 2 -3 (previously presented) provides the NAAQS within the SCAB.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NO
X. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

2.8.2 C ALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
CARB, which became part of the CalEPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates ach ievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the f ederal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO
4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), and vinyl chloride (C 2H3Cl).

However, at this time, H 2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (17) (13).

Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
24 • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development); • A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO
X, CO and PM 10. However, air basins may use
alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.

TITLE 24 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2020.

Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction waste and demolition ordinances and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they establish a minimum 65% diversion requirement.

The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction waste and demolition recycling infrastructure. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.

Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC) and became effective on January 1, 2020.

The 2019 Title 24 standards would result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption in the SCAB and across the State of California. For example, the 2019 Title 24 standards require solar photovoltaic systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting requirements for nonresidential buildings.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
25 The CEC anticipates that single -family homes built with the 2019 standards would use approximately 7% less energy compared to the residential homes built under the 2016 standards.

Additionally, after implementation of solar photovoltaic systems, homes built under the 2019 standards would use about 53% less energy than homes built under the 2016 standards.

Nonresidential buildings (such as the Project) would use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrade requirements (18).

Because the Project would be constructed after January 1, 2019, the 2019 CALGreen standards are applicable to the Project and require, among other items (19):

ONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers -by, for 5% of new visito r motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1). • Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant - occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2). • Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low - emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2). • Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). • Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight, uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8) • Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section • 5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1). • Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3). • Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, pl astics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1). • Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
26 o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2).
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combine flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2). o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water uses in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1). • Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1.1 and

5.303.1.2).
• Outdoor water uses in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf.

Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3).
• Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).

2.8.3 AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (18). AQMPs are updated regularly to ensure an effective reduc tion in emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and Project consistency with the AQMP is provided in Section 3.10.

2.9 R EGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Project is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In 1976, California adopted the Lewis Air Quality Management Act which created SCAQMD from a voluntary association of air pollution control districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardin o counties. The geographic area of which SCAQMD consists of is known as the SCAB. SCAQMD develops comprehensive plans and regulatory programs for the region to attain federal standards by dates specified in federal law. The agency is also responsible for meeting state standards by the earliest date achievable, using reasonably available control measures.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
27 SCAQMD rule development through the 1970s and 1980s resulted in dramatic improvement in SCAB air quality. Nearly all control programs developed through the early 1990s relied on (i) the development and application of cleaner technology; (ii) add- on emissio n controls, and (iii) uniform CEQA review throughout the SCAB. Industrial emission sources have been significantly reduced by this approach and vehicular emissions have been reduced by technologies implemented at the state level by CARB.

As discussed above, the SCAQMD is the lead agency charged with regulating air quality emission reductions for the entire SCAB. SCAQMD created AQMPs which represent a regional blueprint for achieving healthful air on behalf of the 16 million residents of the SCAB. The 2012 AQMP states, “the remarkable historical improvement in air quality since the 1970’s is the direct result of Southern California’s comprehensive, multiyear strategy of reducing air pollution from all sources as outlined in its AQMPs,” (19).

Emissions of O
3, NO X, VOC, and CO have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease through 2020 (20). These decreases result primarily from motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions. Although vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the SCAB continue to increase, NO
X and VOC levels are decreasing because of the
mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower- emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. O 3 contour maps show that the number of days exceeding the 8 - hour NAAQS has generally decreased between 1980 and 20 20. For 20 20, there was an overall decrease in exceedance days compared with the 1980 period. However, as shown on Table 2 -5, O3 levels have increased in the past three years due to higher temperatures and stagnant weather conditions. Notwithstanding, O3 levels in the SCAB have decreased substantially over the last 30 years with the current maximum measured concentrations being approximately one -third of concentrations within the late 70’s (21).

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
28 TABLE 2-5: SCAB O3 TREND

Source: 2020 SCAQMD, Historical O3 Air Quality Trends (1976-2020) The overall trends of PM 10 and PM 2.5 levels in the air (not emissions) show an overall improvement since 1975. Direct emissions of PM 10 have remained somewhat constant in the SCAB and direct emissions of PM 2.5 have decreased slightly since 1975. Area wide sources (fugitive dust from roads, dust from construction, and other sources) contribute the greatest amount of direct particulate matter emissions.

As with other pollutants, the most recent PM 10 statistics show an overall improvement as illustrated in Tables 2 -6 and 2 -7. During the period for which data are available, the 24 -hour national annual average concentration for PM 10 decreased by approximately 46%, from 103.7 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m³) in 1988 to 55.5 µg/m³ in 2020 (22). Although the values are below the federal standard, it should be noted that there are days within the year where the concentrations would exceed the threshold. The 24-hour state annual average for emissions for PM10, have decreased by approximately 64%, from 93.9 µg/m³ in 1989 to 33.9 µg/m³ in 20 20 (22). Although data in the late 1990’s show some variability, this is probably due to the advances in meteorological science rather than a change in emissions. Similar to the ambient concentrations, the calculated number of days above the 24-hour PM10 standards has also shown an overall drop.
0 25
50 75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Basin Days Exceeding
YEAR
1-Hour Stage 1 Episode
1-Hour Health Advisory
1979 1-Hour NAAQS
1997 8-Hour NAAQS
2008 8-Hour NAAQS
2015 8-Hour NAAQS
• • • •
• •
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
29 TABLE 2-6: SCAB AVERAGE 24-HOUR CONCENTRATION PM10 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD)1

Source: 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM10 24-Hour Averages (1988-2020) 1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of “0” have a lso been omitted.

TABLE 2-7: SCAB ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM10 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD)1

Tables 2-8 and 2-9 shows the most recent 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations in the SCAB from 1999 through 2020 . Overall, the national and state annual average concentrations have decreased by almost 50% and 31% respectively (22). It should be noted that the SCAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal PM2.5 standards. 200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0
1 120 .0
.... -= 100.0
0 ·:{ 80,0
"
a.

60.0 _.,__
& ... ~ .... .... ,,
~
-........,.,... ~
-
~

40.0 20,0

0.0 --National 24-Hour Average Year'
--Federal Standard
100.0

90.0 80,0

70.0 "'e 60.0 ..... .. -= 50.0
0 'i 40.0 0.

30.0 20.0

10.0 0.0
--state Annual Average Year'
--State Standard
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
30 TABLE 2-8: SCAB 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM2.5 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD)1

Source: 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM2.5 24-Hour Averages (1999-2020) 1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of “0” have also been omitted.

TABLE 2-9: SCAB ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION PM2.5 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD)1

While the 2012 AQMP PM 10 attainment demonstration and the 2015 associated supplemental SIP submission indicated that attainment of the 24-hour standard was predicted to occur by the end of 2015, it could not anticipate the effect of the ongoing drought on the measured PM2.5.

50.0 45.0

40.0 35.0
ME 30.0
--...
3 25.0
1 CL
'"e
-...

20.0 15.0

10.0 5.0

0.0 30.0

25.0 20.0
3 15.0 ..,
-i
CL

10.0 5.0

0.0 I
~ ....
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ◊ y ◊ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Year'
--Federal 24-Hour Average --Federal Standard
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ◊ y ◊ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Year'
--State Annual Average --State Standard
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
31 The 2006 to 2010 base period used for the 2012 attainment demonstration had near -normal rainfall. While the trend of PM 2.5-equivalent emission reductions continued through 2015, the severe drought conditions contributed to the PM2.5 increases observed after 2012. As a result of the disrupted progress toward attainment of the federal 24 -hour PM 2.5 standard, SCAQMD submitted a request and the EPA approved, in January 2016, a “bump up” to the nonattainment classification from “moderate” to “serious,” with a ne w attainment deadline as soon as practicable, but not beyond December 31, 2019. As of March 14, 2019, the EPA approved portions of a SIP revision submitted by California to address CAA requirements for the 2006 24 - hour PM

2.5 NAAQS in the Los Angeles -SCAB Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The EPA also approved 2017 and 2019 motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes and inter-pollutant trading ratios for use in transportation conformity analyses (23).

In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches inc lude utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (24). Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 -2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories (18).

The 2022 AQMP is currently being developed by SCAQMD to address the EPA’s strengthened ozone standard. Development of the 2022 AQMP is in its early stages and no formal timeline for completion and adoption is currently known.

The most recent CO concentrations in the SCAB are shown in Table 2-10 (22). CO concentrations in the SCAB have decreased markedly — a total decrease of more about 80% in the peak 8-hour concentration from 1986 to 2012. It should be noted 2012 is the most recent year where 8-hour CO averages and related statistics are available in the SCAB. The number of exceedance days has also declined. The entire SCAB is now designated as attainment for both the state and national CO standards. Ongoing reductions from motor vehicle control programs should continue the downward trend in ambient CO concentrations.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
32 TABLE 2-10: SCAB 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CO TREND1

Source: 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 8-Hour Averages (1986-2012) 1 The most recent year where 8-hour concentration data is available is 2012.

Part of the control process of the SCAQMD’s duty to greatly improve the air quality in the SCAB is the uniform CEQA review procedures required by SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) (1993 CEQA Handbook ) (25). The single threshold of significance used to assess Project direct and cumulative impacts has in fact “worked” as evidenced by the track record of the air quality in the SCAB dramatically improving over the course of the past decades. As stated by the SCAQMD, the District’s thresholds of significance are based on factual and scientific data and are therefore appropriate thresholds of significance to use for this Project.

The most recent NO
2 data for the SCAB is shown in Tables 2 -11 and 2-12 (22). Over the last 50 years, NO2 values have decreased significantly; the peak 1 -hour national and state averages for 2020 is approximately 80% lower than what it was during 1963. The SCAB attained the State 1 - hour NO2 standard in 1994, bringing the entire state into attainment. A new state annual average standard of 0.030 ppm was adopted by CARB in February 2007 (26). The new standard is just barely exceeded in the SCAQMD. NO2 is formed from NOX emissions, which also contribute to O3.

As a result, the majority of the future emission control measures would be implemented as part of the overall O3 control strategy. Many of these control measures would target mobile sources, which account for more than three -quarters of California’s NO X emissions. These measures are expected to bring the SCAQMD into attainment of the state annual average standard.

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 CO (ppm)
Year
Maximum 8-hour CO Averages
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
33 TABLE 2-11: SCAB 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION NO2 TREND (BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARD)

Source: 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 1-Hour Averages (1963-2020) TABLE 2-12: SCAB 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION NO2 TREND (BASED ON STATE STANDARD)

Source: 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 1-Hour Averages (1963-2020)

2.9.1 T OXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS (TAC) TRENDS
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks, stationary sources , and consumer products. According to the Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article (27) which was prepared for CARB, results show that between 1990-2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for :ii"
CL
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
E: 400.0
0 z
:ii"
CL
300.0
200.0
100.0

0.0 800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
E: 400.0
0 z 300.0
200.0
100.0

0.0 Vear
--1-Hour Average (National) --Federal Standard
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Vear
--1-hour average (State) --State Standard
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis

14397-05 AQ Report
34 the seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly (between 1990 and 2012). The seven TACs studied include those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene (C 6H6), and
1,3-butadiene (C4H6); those that are derived from stationary sources: perchloroethylene (C 2Cl4) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical reactions of emitted VOCs: formaldehyde (CH
2O) and acetaldehyde (C 2H4O)2. The decline in ambient concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to address cancer risk.

OBILE SOURCE TACS
CARB introduced two programs that aimed at reducing mobile emissions for light and medium duty vehicles through vehicle emissions controls and cleaner fuel. In California, light-duty vehicles sold after 1996 are equipped with California’s second- generation On-Board Diagnostic (OBD -II) system. The OBD -II system monitors virtually every component that can affect the emission performance of the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle remains as clean as possible over its entire life and assists repair technicians in diagnosing and fixing problems with the computerized engine controls. If a problem is detected, the OBD- II system illuminates a warning lamp on the vehicle instrument panel to alert the driver. This warning lamp typically contains the phrase “Check Engine” or “Service Engine Soon.” The system would also store important information about the detected malfunction so that a repair technician can accurately find and fix the problem. CARB has recently developed similar OBD requirements for heavy -duty vehicles over 14,000 pounds (lbs). CARB’s phase II Reformulated Gasoline Regulation (RFG -2), adopted in 1996, also led to a reduction of mobile source emissions. Through such regulations, benzene levels declined 88% from 1990-2012. 1,3-Butadiene concentrations also declined 85% from 1990-2012 as a result of the use of reformulated gasoline and motor vehicle regulations (27).

In 2000, CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP) recommended the replacement and retrofit of diesel-fueled engines and the use of ultra-low-sulfur (<15 ppm) diesel fuel. As a result of these measures, DPM concentrations have declined 68% since 2000, even though the state’s population increased 31% and the amount of diesel vehicles miles traveled increased 81%, as shown on Exhibit 2-B. With the implementation of these diesel-related control regulations, CARB expects a DPM decline of 71% for 2000-2020.

SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) study, discussed later illustrates the cancer risk trends, which show an approximate 80% reduction in risk from 2000 to 2020, which correlates to the reductions in DPM anticipated by CARB.

2 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
35 EXHIBIT 2-A: DPM AND DIESEL VEHICLE MILES TREND

Source: 2020 CARB

DIESEL REGULATIONS
CARB and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (POLA and POLB) have adopted several iterations of regulations for diesel trucks that are aimed at reducing DPM. More specifically, CARB Drayage Truck Regulation (28), CARB statewide On-road Truck and Bus Regulation (29) , and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Clean Truck Program (CTP) require accelerated implementation of “clean trucks” into the statewide truck fleet (30). In other words, older more polluting trucks would be replaced with newer, cleaner trucks as a function of these regulatory requirements.

Moreover, the average statewide DPM emissions for Heavy Duty Trucks (HDT), in terms of grams of DPM generated per mile traveled, would dramatically be reduced due to the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

Diesel emissions identified in this analysis would therefore overstate future DPM emissions since not all the regulatory requirements are reflected in the modeling.

ANCER RISK TRENDS
Based on information available from CARB, overall cancer risk throughout the SCAB has had a declining trend since 1990. In 1998, following an exhaustive 10 -year scientific assessment process, CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant.

The SCAQMD initiated a comprehensive urban toxic air pollution study called the MATES. DPM accounts for more than 70% of the cancer risk.
100%
-100%
California Population, Gross State Product (GSP),
Diesel Cancer Risk, Diesel Vehiclle-Mites-Traveled (VMT) Diesel VMT
Populat ion
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
36 In January 2018, as part of the overall effort to reduce air toxics exposure in the SCAB, SCAQMD began conducting the MATES V Program. MATES V field measurements were conducted at ten fixed sites (the same sites selected for MATES III and IV) to assess trends in air toxics levels.

MATES V also included measurements of ultrafine particles (UFP) and black carbon (BC) concentrations, which can be compared to the UFP levels measured in MATES IV (31) . The draft report for the MATES V study was published in late May and the comment submission deadline on June 7, 2021. In addition to new measurements and updated modeling results, several key updates were implemented in MATES V. First, MATES V estimates cancer risks by taking into account multiple exposure pathways, which includes inhalation and non- inhalation pathways.

This approach is consistent with how cancer risks are estimated in South Coast AQMD’s programs such as permitting, Air Toxics Hot Spots (AB2588), and CEQA. Previous MATES studies quantified the cancer risks based on the inhalation pathway only. Second, along with cancer risk estimates, MATES V includes information on the chronic non- cancer risks from inhalation and non - inhalation pathways for the first time. Cancer risks and chronic non- cancer risks from MATES II through IV measurements have been re-examined using current Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CalEPA risk assessment methodologies and modern statistical methods to examine the trends over time (32).

MATES-V calculated cancer risks based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are within the local area of the Project site. However, MATES-V has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. The Project is located within a quadrant of the geographic grid of the MATES -V model which predicted a cancer risk of 344 per million for the area containing the Project site.

DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all other TAC sources. As in previous MATES iterations, DPM is the largest contributor to overall air toxics cancer risk. However, the average levels of DPM in MATES V are 53% lower at the 10 monitoring sites compared to MATES IV.

Cumulative Project generated TACs are limited to DPM.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
37 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
38 3 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT

3.1 I NTRODUCTION
This study quantifies air quality emissions generated by construction and operation of the Project and addresses whether the Project conflicts with implementation of the SCAQMD’s AQMP and Lead Agency planning regulations. The analysis of Project -generated air emissions determines whether the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is in non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS and CAAQS.

Additionally, the Project has been evaluated to determine whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and the impacts of odors. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following sections.

3.2 S TANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (1):
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The SCAQMD has also developed regional significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 3 -1 (33). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Regional Construction Threshold Regional Operational Thresholds NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Pb 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
lbs/day = Pounds Per Day
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
39 3.3 M ODELS EMPLOYED TO ANALYZE AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 C ALEEMOD
Land uses such as the Project affect air quality through construction- source and operational- source emissions.

In May 2021, t he SCAQMD, in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction- source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NO X, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from MMs (34). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Appendices 3.1 through 3.4.

3.4 C ONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. This analysis assumes that earthwork activities are expected to balance on site and no import or export of soils would be required.

N-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, hauling, and vendors commuting to and from the site. The number of workers, hauling, and vendor trips are presented below in Table 3-2. It should be noted that for Vendor Trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns Vendor Trips to the Building Construction phase. Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for Vendor Trips have been adjusted based on a ratio of the total vendor trips to the number of days of each subphase of activity.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
40 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity Worker Trips
Per Day
Vendor Trips
Per Day
Hauling Trips
Per Day
Site Preparation 18 3 0
Grading 15 5 0
Building Construction 183 63 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 37 0 0

3.4.1 C ONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction is anticipated to begin in August 2022 and will last through July 2023 . The construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table 3 -3, represents a “worst -case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent 3. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (1).

TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 08/01/2022 08/12/2022 10
Grading 08/13/2022 09/09/2022 20
Building Construction 09/10/2022 07/28/2023 230
Paving 07/03/2023 07/28/2023 20
Architectural Coating 06/05/2023 07/28/2023 40

3.4.2 C ONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment listed in Table 3-4 will operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the code.

3 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
41 TABLE 3-4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity Equipment1 Amount Hours Per Day
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
1 In order to account for fugitive dust emissions, Crawler Tractors were used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

3.4.3 C ONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY

IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION
CalEEMod calculates maximum daily emissions for summer and winter periods. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 3-5. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendi x 3.1. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
42 TABLE 3-5: OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY – WITHOUT MITIGATION Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2022 4.55 50.59 25.89 0.07 13.56 6.37
2023 51.60 40.72 43.81 0.10 4.78 2.45
Winter
2022 4.55 50.59 24.54 0.07 13.56 6.37
2023 51.54 40.87 42.22 0.10 4.78 2.45
Maximum Daily Emissions 51.60 50.59 43.81 0.10 13.56 6.37 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1

3.5 O PERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NO X, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRU) Emissions

3.5.1 A REA SOURCE EMISSIONS

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Over a period of time the buildings that are part of this Project will require maintenance and will therefore produce emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated using CalEEMod.

CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The emissions associated with use of consumer products were calculated based on defaults provided within CalEEMod.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
43 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. It should be noted that as October 9, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1346. The bill aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered equipment under 25 gross horsepower (known as small off- road engines [SOREs]) by 2024. For p urposes of analysis, t he emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod.

3.5.2 E

NERGY SOURCE EMISSIONS

COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity are generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using CalEEMod.

3.5.3 M

OBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The Project related operational air quality emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project, including employee trips to and from the site and truck trips associated with the proposed uses. Trip characteristics available from the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation and VMT Analysis were utilized in this analysis (35).

PPROACH FOR ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT
In order to determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, the CalEEMod defaults were utilized for trip length and trip purpose for the proposed industrial land uses.

For the proposed industrial uses, it is important to note that although the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT does not breakdown passenger cars by type, this analysis assumes that passenger cars include Light -Duty-Auto vehicles (LDA), Light -Duty- Trucks (LDT1
4 & LDT25), Medium-Duty-Vehicles (MDV), and Motorcycles (MCY) vehicle types. To account for emissions generated by passenger cars, the following fleet mix was utilized in this analysis:

4 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
5 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
44 TABLE 3-6: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX
Land Use
% Vehicle Type
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV MCY
Manufacturing

57.60% 6.03% 18.59% 15.19% 2.59% Warehousing
High-Cube Cold Storage
Note: The Project-specific passenger car fleet mix used in this analysis is based on a proportional split utilizing the default CalEEMod percentages assigned to LDA, LDT1, LDT2, and MDV vehicle types.

To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses , the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 40 miles 6 and an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed industrial land uses.

In order to be consistent with the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT, trucks are broken down by truck type. The truck fleet mix is estimated by rationing the trip rates for each truck type based on information provided in the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT. Heavy trucks are broken down by truck type (or axle type) and are categorized as either Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks (LHDT17 & LHDT2 8)/2-axle, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks (MHDT)/3-axle, and Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT)/4+- axle. To account for emissions generated by trucks, the following fleet mix was utilized in this analysis:

TABLE 3-7: TRUCK FLEET MIX
Land Use
% Vehicle Type
LHDT1 LHDT2 MHDT HHDT
Manufacturing 9.81% 2.69% 25.00% 62.50%
Warehousing 13.35% 3.67% 21.28% 61.70%
High-Cube Cold Storage 43.58% 11.98% 22.22% 22.22%
Note: Project-specific truck fleet mix is based on the number of trips generated by each truck type (LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, and HHDT) relative to the total number of truck trips.

FUGITIVE DUST RELATED TO VEHICULAR TRAVEL
Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of break and tire wear particulates. The emissions estimate for travel on paved roads were calculated using CalEEMod.

6 The average trip length for heavy trucks were based on the SCAQMD documents for the implementation of the Facility -Based Mobile Source Measures (FBMSMs) adopted in the 2016 AQMP. SCAQMD’s “Preliminary Warehouse Emission Calculations” cites 39.9 -mile trip length for heavy-heavy trucks (41). As a conservative measure, a trip length of 40 miles has been utilized for all trucks for the purpose of this analysis (39) 7 Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs. 8 Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
45 3.5.4 O N-SITE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
It is common for warehouse buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas . For this particular Project, on -site modeled operational equipment includes up to one (1 ) 200 horsepower (hp), compressed natural gas or gasoline-powered tractors/loaders/backhoes operating at 4 hours a day9 for 365 days of the year.

3.5.5 TRU EMISSIONS
In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the cold-storage land use are assumed to also have TRUs. Therefore, for modeling purposes 9 trucks have the potential to include TRUs (approximately 7% of all trucks accessing the site). TRUs are accounted for during on- site and off- site travel. The TRU calculations are based on the 2017 Off- road Emissions model, version 1.0.1 (Orion), developed by the CARB. Orion does not provide emission rates per hour or mile as with th e on -road emission model and only provides emission inventories. Emission results are produced in tons per day while all activity, fuel consumption and horsepower hours were reported at annual levels. The emission inventory is based on specific assumptions including the average horsepower rating of specific types of equipment and the hours of operation annually. These assumptions are not always consistent with assumptions used in the modeling of project level emissions. Therefore, the emissions inventor y was converted into emission rates to accurately calculate emissions from TRU operation associated with project level details. This was accomplished by converting the annual horsepower hours to daily operational characteristics and converting the daily emission levels into hourly emission rates based on the total emission of each criteria pollutant by equipment type and the average daily hours of operation.

3.5.6 O

PERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
As previously stated, CalEEMod utilizes summer and winter EMFAC2017 emission factors in order to derive vehicle emissions associated with Project operational activities, which vary by season.

The estimated operational-source emissions are summarized on Tab les 3-8. Detailed operation model outputs for the Project are presented in Appendi ces 3.2 and 3.4. As shown on Table 3 -8, the Project’s daily regional emissions from on -going operations will not exceed any of the thresholds of significance.

9 Based on Table II-3, Port and Rail Cargo Handling Equipment Demographics by Type, from CARB’s Technology Assessment: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment document, a single piece of equipment could operate up to 2 hours per day (Total Average Annual Activity divided by Total Number Pieces of Equipment). As such, the analysis conservatively assumes that the tractor/loader/backhoe would ope rate up to 4 hours per day.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
46 TABLE 3-8: SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 5.02 7.00E-04 0.08 0.00 2.70E-04 2.70E-04
Energy Source 0.09 0.83 0.70 4.98E-03 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source 1.78 19.16 19.71 0.14 8.15 2.40
TRU Source 0.07 0.77 0.92 1.77E-04 0.01 0.01
On-Site Equipment Source 0.11 1.04 0.75 3.17E-03 0.04 0.03 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 7.07 21.80 22.14 0.15 8.26 2.51 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Area Source 5.02 7.00E-04 0.08 0.00 2.70E-04 2.70E-04
Energy Source 0.09 0.83 0.70 4.98E-03 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source 1.58 20.22 17.74 0.14 8.15 2.40
TRU Source 0.07 0.77 0.92 1.77E-04 0.01 0.01
On-Site Equipment Source 0.11 1.04 0.75 3.17E-03 0.04 0.03 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 6.87 22.85 20.18 0.15 8.26 2.51 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.4.

3.6 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE

BACKGROUND ON LST DEVELOPMENT
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs).

The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I -4

10. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not

10 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air p ollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
47 cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

LSTs were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the LST Methodology (36).

PPLICABILITY OF LSTS FOR THE PROJECT
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Perris Valley (SRA 24).

LSTs apply to CO, NO 2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look- up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size.

In order to determine the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of Project-related construction, the following process is undertaken:
• Identify the maximum daily on-site emissions that will occur during construction activity:
o The maximum daily on-site emissions could be based on information provided by the Project Applicant; or
o The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds and CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod can be used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod (37) (38). • If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to 5 acres per day, then the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized to determine if a Project has the potential to result in a significant impact. The look-up tables establish a maximum daily emissions threshold in lbs/day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs.
• If the total acreage disturbed is greater than 5 acres per day, then LST impacts may still be conservatively evaluated using the LST look-up tables for a 5-acre disturbance area. Use of the 5- acre disturbance area thresholds can be used to show that even if the daily emissions from all construction acti vity were emitted within a 5 -acre area, and therefore concentrated over a smaller area which would result in greater site adjacent concentrations, the impacts would still be less than significant if the applicable 5-acre thresholds are utilized. • The LST Methodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances between the given receptors, the m ethodology uses linear interpolation to determine the thresholds.

EMISSIONS CONSIDERED
Based on SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions for concern during construction activities are on-site NO X, CO, PM 2.5, and PM 10. The LST Methodology clearly states that “off- site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs (39).” As Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
48 such, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on- site” emissions outputs were considered.

MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED-ACREAGE
As a conservative measure, it is assumed that the total construction area ( approximately 10 acres) will be disturbed per day can be actively disturbed during construction of the site. In CalEEMod, the Total Acres Graded (TAG) field represents the cumulative distance traversed on the property by the grading equipment. In order to properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with grading equipment may be required. So even though the lot size is a fixed number of acres, the TAG could be an order of magnitude higher than the footprint of the lot (38). Total Acres Graded (TAG) is a function of the maximum acreage disturbed per day times the number of days of the subphase of construction. As such, the TAG field in CalEEMod has been revised to 1 00 acres (10 acres per day x 10 days) for site preparation and 200 acres (10 acres per day x 20 days) for grading

11. RECEPTORS
As previously stated, LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS and CAAQS at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. Receptor locations are off -site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from Project activities.

Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre -existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site (in this case the West Valley Detention Center) has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

LSTs apply, even for non- sensitive land uses, consistent with LST Methodology and SCAQMD guidance. Per the LST Methodology , commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees and patrons do not typically remain onsite for a full 24 hours but are typically onsite for 8 hours or less. However, LST Methodology explicitly states that “LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO 2 and CO LSTs, could also be
applied to receptors such as industrial or commercial facilities since it is reasonable to assume that a worker at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight hours (39).” Therefore, any adjacent land use where an individual could remain for 1 or 8-hours, that is located at a closer distance to the Project site than the receptor used for PM 10 and PM 2.5 analysis, must be

11 CalEEMod does not provide a “Total Acres Graded” field for Demolition, Building Construction, Paving, or Architectural Coating activities.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
49 considered to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NO 2 and CO since these pollutants have an averaging time of 1 and 8-hours.

RECEPTORS
Receptors in the relative to Project area are described below and shown on Exhibit 3-A. Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at receptor land uses nearest the Project site. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing residence at 11989 Tabor Drive, approximately 111 feet north of the Project site. R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing residence at 24130 Ironwood Avenue, approximately 123 feet north of the Project site . Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R2 is placed at the building façade.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing residence at 12079 Nita Drive , approximately 1262 feet east of the Project site. R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing residence at 12107 Heacock Street , approximately 103 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing residence at 12065 Heacock Street, approximately 184 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R5 is placed at the building façade.

R6: Location R6 represents the existing light industrial uses, approximately 5 feet east of the Project site.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual a cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 (since
PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24 -hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts o f PM 10 and PM 2.5 is represented by location R 4 which represents the existing residence at 12107 Heacock Street, approximately 103 feet (31 meters) west of the Project site. As such, for evaluation of localized PM10 and PM2.5, a 31-meter distance will be used.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
50 EXHIBIT 3-A: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

..,,
-.... ~-------. __ _
I
I
I
Site l~ ------"---"--r--=,.;::,=.--+- ,....=a~-----=--------=--'----=---- ---'- ,..,_~ I
I-
I
s' ,,~
I _________ ,,,
LEGEND:
[ :! Site Boundary -• Distance from receptor to Project site boundary (in feet) ~ Receptor Locations
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
51 As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology , the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NO X and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assumed that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO is represented by location R 6 which represents the existing light industrial uses , approximately 5 feet (2 meters) east of the Project site. It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (40) .” As such a 25 -meter receptor distance will be used for evaluation of localized NOX and CO.

3.7 C ONSTRUCTION-SOURCE EMISSIONS LST ANALYSIS

3.7.1 L OCALIZED THRESHOLDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Although the total acreage disturbed is more than 5 acres per day for construction activities, the LST Methodology provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on -site emissions associated with the P roject would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. This screening method would therefore over-predict potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on- site construction activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower c oncentration once emissions reach the Project-site boundary. As such, LSTs for a 5-acre site during construction are used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required. The thresholds used in for the construction-source LST analysis are presented below in Table 3-9.

TABLE 3-9: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS Construction Localized Thresholds
NOX CO PM10 PM10
270 lbs/day 1,577 lbs/day 19 lbs/day 8 lbs/day
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008

3.7.2 CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE LOCALIZED EMISSIONS

IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION
Table 3-10 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
52 SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criterial pollutant. Outputs from the model runs for unmitigated construction LSTs are provided in Appendix 3.1.

TABLE 3-10: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE EMISSIONS – WITHOUT MITIGATION Construction Phase Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
2022 50.41 20.01 13.34 6.31
Maximum Daily Emissions 50.41 20.01 13.34 6.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
2022 33.85 15.50 7.84 2.98
Maximum Daily Emissions 33.85 15.50 7.84 2.98
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building Construction
2022 29.76 17.67 1.27 1.19
2023 26.20 17.35 1.12 1.04
Maximum Daily Emissions 29.76 17.67 1.27 1.19
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Paving
2023 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Maximum Daily Emissions 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Architectural Coating
2023 1.74 2.41 0.09 0.09
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.74 2.41 0.09 0.09
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod unmitigated localized construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1.

3.8 O PERATIONAL-SOURCE EMISSIONS LST ANALYSIS
The Project is located on an approximately 9.98- acre parcel. As noted previously, the LST Methodology provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5 -acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine whether pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on -site emissions associated with the project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. This screening method would therefore over-predict potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on- site operational activities are occurring over a Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
53 smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach the project-site boundary. As such, LSTs for a 5 -acre site during operations are used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required.

The LST analysis generally includes on -site sources (area, energy, mobile, and on -site cargo handling equipment – are previously discussed in Section 3.5 of this report). However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions from mobile sources. As such, in an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the emissions shown on Table 3 -12 represent all on -site Project -related stationary (area) sources and 5% of the Project-related mobile sources. Considering that the trip length used in CalEEMod for the Project is approximately 16.6 miles for passenger cars and 40.0 miles for all trucks, 5% of this total would represent an on-site travel distance of approximately 0.8 mile/4,382 feet for passenger cars and 2 miles/10,560 feet for trucks. It should be noted that the longest on- site distance is roughly 0.23 miles for both trucks and passenger cars (entrance through Driveway 1 and exist through Driveway 3). As such, the 5% assumption is conservative and would tend to overstate the actual impact because it is not likely that a passenger car would drive 0.8 mile on the site or that a truck would drive 2 miles on the site. Modeling based on these assumptions demonstrates that even within broad encompassing parameters, Project operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs.

3.8.1 L

OCALIZED THRESHOLDS FOR OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY
As previously stated, LSTs for a 5 -acre site during operations are used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required.

TABLE 3-11: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS Operational Localized Thresholds
NOX CO PM10 PM10
270 lbs/day 1,577 lbs/day 5 lbs/day 2 lbs/day
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008

3.8.2 O PERATIONAL-SOURCE LOCALIZED EMISSIONS

IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION
As shown on Table 3 -12 operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
54 TABLE 3-12: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS – WITHOUT MITIGATION Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2.86 2.55 0.51 0.22
Winter 2.92 2.46 0.51 0.22
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.92 2.55 0.51 0.22
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 5 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.4.

3.9 CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 3-13.

TABLE 3-13: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Source: 2003 AQMP, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan ), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
55 meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8 -hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the re maining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepare d (41). In contrast, a n adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 3-14. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Ave nue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (41). The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1 -hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm)

12. TABLE 3-14: TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 Source: 2003 AQMP
Preliminary trip generation estimates for the Project indicate that the proposed warehouse uses would generate an estimated maximum of approximately 65 trips during the PM peak hour.

Further, in scoping the transportation analysis for the Project, the City has determined that Project traffic would not result in level -of-service deficiencies that would potentially contribute to intersection delays and congestion.

Moreover, the ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.9 ppm and 1.4 ppm, respectively (data from Perris Valley station for 2020). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, coupled with the on- going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

12 Based on the ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm) Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
56 Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact (42).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the project to result in or cause adverse CO “hotspots” is considered less-than-significant.

3.10 AQMP
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square -mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.

In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP ( 2016 AQMP). The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (43). Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (18). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2016 AQMP as discussed below.

AQMP

CONSISTENCY
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are identified at Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), as listed below. Project consistency with, and support of these criteria is presented subsequently. • Criterion No. 1: The project under consideration will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS/CAAQS air quality violations or cause or contribute to new NAAQS/CAAQS violations; or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
57 • Criterion No. 2: The project under consideration will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2011 or increments based on the years of Project build-out phase.

CRITERION NO. 1 CONSISTENCY
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if LSTs or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction -source and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thre sholds or applicable LSTs. Further, the Project would implement applicable best available control measures (BACMs), and would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules, acting to further reduce potential Project-source air quality impacts.

The Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing CAAQS/NAAQS air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

C
RITERION NO. 2 CONSISTENCY
The existing 2006 General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project site is “Commercial.” To allow for the Project industrial uses, a General Plan Land Use Amendment is proposed that would redesignate the Project site General Plan Land Use from Commercial t o “Business Park/Light Industrial.” The Project would be allowed under the proposed Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation.

The change in General Plan Land Use proposed by the Project (from Commercial to Light Industrial/Business Park) would likely result in a net reduction in total criteria air pollutant emissions. This is due primarily to the net reduction in traffic and mobile- source air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the Project light industrial uses when compared to traffic and mobile-source emissions that would result from commercial development of the subject site.

Trip generation (traffic) is a general proxy that broadly represents relative air quality impacts of development proposals. Trip generation resulting from the Project Business Park/Light Industrial uses would be substantially reduced when compared to trip generation resulting from development of the site allowed under the site’s current General Plan Commercial Land Use. In this regard, trip generation for the site if developed with general commercial uses at a scope and intensity comparable to the Project would be approximately 24.44 passenger car equivalent average daily trips (PCE ADT) per thousand square feet (TSF). In comparison, the Project would generate approximately 3.07 PCE ADT per TSF.
13 On this basis, air quality impacts resulting from
the Project would not exceed assumptions reflected in the AQMP.

The Project light industrial uses are consistent with uses allowed under the proposed Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project FAR (0.51) is consistent with and would not exceed the General Plan FAR (1.0) established for the Business Park/Light

13 Project Trip Generation Comparison from Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT (Urban Crossroads) December 14, 2021, Table 5, Trip Generation Comparison. See: DEIR Appendix C, Transportation.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
58 Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project uses would be implemented consistent with zoning established under Specific Plan No. 205 as amended herein. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized a ir quality significance thresholds.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

AQMP

CONSISTENCY CONCLUSION
As presented above, the Project is consistent with AQMP Consistency Criteria and would therefore not conflict with the AQMP. On this basis, the Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is considered less-than-significant.

3.11 P OTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Further Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

3.11.1 F

RIANT RANCH CASE
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the California Supreme Court held that an EIR air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided.

As discussed in briefs filed in the Friant Ranch case, correlating a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to specific health impacts is challenging. The SCAQMD, which has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes (45) noted that it may be “difficult to quantify health impacts for criteria pollutants.” SCAQMD used O 3 as an example of
why it is impracticable to determine specific health outcomes from criteria pollutants for all but very large, regional- scale projects. First, forming O 3 “takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.” (SCAQMD, 2015a, p. 11) Second, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emis sions (NO
X and VOCs) to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region,” with a 2012 study showing that “reducing NOX by 432 tons per day (157,680 tons/year) and reducing VOC by 187 tons per day (68,255 tons/year) would reduce ozone levels at the SCAQMD’s monitor site with the highest levels by only 9 parts per billion.” (SCAQMD, 2015a, pp. 12-14)
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
59 SCAQMD concluded that it “does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone - related health impacts caused by NO X or VOC emissions from relatively small projects.” (SCAQMD, 2015a, pp. 12- 14) The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) ties the difficulty of correlating the emission of criteria pollutants to health impacts to how ozone and particulate matter are formed, stating that “[b]ecause of the complexity of ozone formation, a specific tonnage amount of NOX or VOCs emitted in a particular area does not equate to a particular concentration of ozone in that area.” (SJVUAPCD, 2015, p. 4) Similarly, the tonnage of particulate matter “emitted does not always equate to the local particulate matter concentration because it can be transported long distances by wind,” and “[s]econdary particulate matter, like ozone, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as sulfur dioxides (SO X) and NOX,” meaning that “the tonnage
of particulate matter - forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary particulate matter in that area.” (SJVUAPCD, 2015, p. 5) The disconnect between the amount of precursor pollutants and the concentration of ozone or particulate matter formed makes it difficult to determine potential health impacts, which are related to the concentration of ozone and particulate matter experienced by the receptor rather than levels of NO
X, SOX, and VOCs produced by a source.

Most local agencies lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project. The use of national or “generic” data to fill the gap of missing local data would not yield accurate results because such data does not capture local air patterns, local background conditions, or local population characteristics, all of which play a role in how a population experiences air pollution. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the role of other allergens and genetics in cause asthma), existing scientific tools cannot accurately estimate health impacts of the Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. Instead, readers are directed to the Project’s air quality impact analysis above, which provides extensive information concerning the quantifiable and non- quantifiable health risks related to the Project’s construction and long-term operation.

The LST analysis above determined that the P roject would not result in emissions exceeding SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NO X, PM10,
and PM2.5.

As the Project’s emissions will comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards , the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin- wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled.

3.12 O DORS
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
60 • Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not propose or require land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long -term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short -term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (46).

3.13 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously shown in Table 2-3, the CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3 PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (47).

In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility -wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
61 significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project- specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project- specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

ONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
T
he Project
-s
pecific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction- source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
T
he Project
-s
pecific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project operational- source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
62 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
63 4 REFERENCES

1. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

2. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

3. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.

4. City of Moreno Valley. City of Moreno Valley General Plan. 2006.

5. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Southern California Air Basins. [Online] https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/maps/scabc7map.pdf.

6. —. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. 2005.

7. St. Croix Sensory, Inc. The "Gray Line" Between Odor Nuisance and Health Effects. 2000.

8. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). [Online] 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

9. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions about General Conformity . EPA. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity#8.

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. [Online] July 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring- network-plan/annual-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan-v2.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

11. Air Resources Board. State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. [Online] https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/stateareadesignations/appc.pdf?_ga=2.169398369.15376157

02.1554741141-1192937971.1505156621.

12. District, South Coast Air Quality Management. Air Quality Data Tables. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year.

13. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.

14. —. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary- title-i.

16. —. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title II. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act- overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii.

17. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.

18. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.

19. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan. 2012.

20. California Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. 2013.

21. South Coast AQMD. South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/historical-air-quality-data/historic-ozone-air-quality-trends.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
64 22. California Air Resources Board. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board. [Online] https://arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.

23. Environmental Protection Agency. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5. [Online] 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/12/2019-01922/approval-and-promulgation- of-implementation-plans-california-south-coast-serious-area-plan-for-the.

24. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District. [Online] March 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final- 2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf.

25. South coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). 1993.

26. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Nitrogen Dioxide- Overview. [Online] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/no2-1/no2-1.htm.

27. Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. 2015.

28. Air Resources Board. ARB's Drayage Truck Regulatory Activities. [Online] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/porttruck.htm.

29. —. Truck and Bus Regulation. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. [Online] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm.

30. The Port of Los Angeles. Clean Truck Program. [Online] http://www.portoflosangeles.org/ctp/idx_ctp.asp.

31. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Transfer Funds, Appropriate Funding, Execute Purchase Orders, Execute Contrat and Authorize Release of RFQs for the Fifth Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. South Coast Air Quality Management District. [Online] 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-jul7- 009.pdf?sfvrsn=7.

32. —. Executive Summary. MATES V Draft Report. [Online] 2021. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/planning/mates-v/draft-mates-v-executive-summary_v2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

33. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air- quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

34. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] September 2016. www.caleemod.com.

35. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT. 2021.

36. Lake Environmental. US EPA Models. Lake Environmental. [Online] http://www.weblakes.com/download/us_epa.html.

37. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
65 38. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

39. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. :

South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2008.

40. —. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

41. —. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.

42. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baaqmd.gov/.

43. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.

44. South coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). 1993.

45. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin and League of Women Voters of Fresno, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. County of Fresno, Defendant and Respondent and, Friant Ranchm L.P. Real Party in Interest and Respondent. [Online] 2015. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf.

46. —. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 402.pdf.

47. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
66 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
67 5 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this air study report represent an accurate depiction of the environment al impacts associated with the proposed Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II. The information contained in this air quality impact assessment report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected]

Haseeb Qureshi
Associate Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Environmental Studies
California State University, Fullerton • May 2010
Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Analysis and Design
University of California, Irvine • June, 2006

ROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
AEP – Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials

ROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – CARB • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June 2006 Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report
68 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 2.1:

STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

APPENDIX C

MAPS AND TABLES OF AREA DESIGNATIONS FOR

STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

[This page intentionally left blank]

C-1

APPENDIX C

MAPS AND TABLES OF AREA DESIGNATIONS FOR

STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

This attachment fulfills the requirement of Health and Safety Code section 40718 for CARB to publish maps that identify areas where one or more violations of any State ambient air quality standard (State standard) or national ambient air quality standard (national standard) have been measured. The national standards are those promulgated under section 109 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).

This attachment is divided into three parts. The first part comprises a table showing the levels, averaging times, and measurement methods for each of the State and national standards. This is followed by a section containing maps and tables showing the area designations for each pollutant for which there is a State standard in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 70200. The last section contains maps and tables showing the most current area designations for the national standards.

C-2

Concentration
3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m 3) —
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m 3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3 —
24 Hour — — 35 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m 3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) —
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m 3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) —
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — —
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m 3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300
µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) 11 —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas) 11 —
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m 3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3
(for certain areas) 12
Rolling 3-Month
Average — 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
14 8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m 3) Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride
12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m 3) Gas
Chromatography
See footnotes on next page …
Lead12,13 Atomic Absorption
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
AbsorptionSame as Primary
Standard
No
National
Standards
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2 )
10 Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2 )
11 Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Ultraviolet
Flourescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
9 Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Ozone (O3)8 Ultraviolet Photometry Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Res pirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
9 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards
1 National Standards
2 (Updated 5/4/16)
C-3

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

9. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).

California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14. In 1989, the CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

C-4

[This page intentionally left blank]

C-5

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standards

The following maps and tables show the area designations for each pollutant with a State standard set forth in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200.

Each area is identified as attainment, nonattainment, nonattainment-transitional, or unclassified for each pollutant, as shown below:

Attainment A
Nonattainment N
Nonattainment-Transitional NA-T
Unclassified U
In general, CARB designates areas by air basin for pollutants with a regional impact and by county for pollutants with a more local impact. However, when there are areas within an air basin or county with distinctly different air quality deriving from sources and conditions not affecting the entire air basin or county, CARB may designate a smaller area. Generally, when boundaries of the designated area differ from the air basin or county boundaries, the description of the specific area is referenced at the bottom of the summary table.

C-6
FIGURE 1

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
D Unclassified
Vf:/:'.J Attainment
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
DTIID Nonattainment-Transitional
~ Nonattainment
-Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
OZONE
N
A
200
--==---===-------• Miles
50 \00

SUTTER BUTTES

SOUTH COAST
.... ""-
'-
C-7

TABLE 1

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Ozone (1)

N NA-T U A N NA-T U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X Alpine County X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Inyo County X Colusa and Glenn Counties X
Mono County X Sutter/Yuba Counties
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Sutter Buttes X
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Remainder of Sutter County X MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X Yuba County X
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN Yolo/Solano Counties X
Amador County X Remainder of Air Basin X
Calaveras County X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X
El Dorado County (portion) X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X
Mariposa County X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X Nevada County X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
Placer County (portion) X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN Plumas County X San Luis Obispo County X
Sierra County X Santa Barbara County X
Tuolumne County X Ventura County X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X
(1) AB 3048 (Olberg) and AB 2525 (Miller) signed into law in 1996, made changes to Health and Safety Code, section 40925.5. One of the changes allows nonattainment districts to become nonattainment-transitional for ozone by operation of law.

C-8
FIGURE 2

NORTH

CENTRA L
COAST
D Unclassified
l>'Si(J Attainment
m Nonattainment
-Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM10
50 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES

SOUTH COAST
' '\.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
N
A
100
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
200
Miles
C-9

TABLE 2

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Del Norte, Sonoma (portion) and Trinity Counties X MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X Remainder of Air Basin X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN Amador County X Siskiyou County X
Calaveras County X Remainder of Air Basin X
El Dorado County (portion) X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN Mariposa County Shasta County X
- Yosemite National Park X Remainder of Air Basin X - Remainder of County X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X
Nevada County X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X
Placer County (portion) X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X Plumas County X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
Sierra County X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X
Tuolumne County X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

C-10
FIGURE 3

N 0;~;/;ft6fii,\1ir~ii)

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
C] Unclassified
l<s·,{;J Attainment
~ Nonattainment
- AirBasin
-- Cou nty
Source Date:

Octo ber 201 B
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
·-- . ··: ... •
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM2.5
N
A
200
--=::::11--===-------• Mlles
50 100

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
County Ponion
of Federal Ozone AQMA
¥1~~~!~![ .::.::'

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Calexico
C-11

TABLE 3

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Imperial County
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X - City of Calexico (3) X
MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN Remainder of Air Basin X
San Bernardino County SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X
- County portion of federal Southeast
Desert Modified AQMA for Ozone (1) X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
Remainder of Air Basin X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN San Luis Obispo County X Plumas County Santa Barbara County X
- Portola Valley (2) X Ventura County X
Remainder of Air Basin X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Butte County X
Colusa County X
Glenn County X
Placer County (portion) X
Sacramento County X
Shasta County X
Sutter and Yuba Counties X
Remainder of Air Basin X

(1) California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(b) (2) California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(c) (3) California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(a)

C-12
FIGURE 4

Del
Norte

SAN FRANCISCO
Siskiyou
D Unclassified
V'::::i('j Attainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 20 18
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Modoc
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARBON MONOXIDE
0 5 0

MOUNTAIN COUNT IES

SOUTH COAST
" '\.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
N
A
100
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
200
Miles
C-13

TABLE 4

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Carbon Monoxide*

N NA-T U A N NA-T U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN Alpine County X Butte County X
Inyo County X Colusa County X
Mono County X Glenn County X
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Placer County (portion) X LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Sacramento County X
MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN Shasta County X
Kern County (portion) X Solano County (portion) X Los Angeles County (portion) X Sutter County X Riverside County (portion) X Tehama County X
San Bernardino County (portion) X Yolo County X MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN Yuba County X
Amador County X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X
Calaveras County X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X
El Dorado County (portion) X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X Mariposa County X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
Nevada County X Fresno County X
Placer County (portion) X Kern County (portion) X Plumas County X Kings County X
Sierra County X Madera County X
Tuolumne County X Merced County X
NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN San Joaquin County X Monterey County X Stanislaus County X
San Benito County X Tulare County X
Santa Cruz County X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X
Del Norte County X
Humboldt County X
Mendocino County X
Sonoma County (portion) X
Trinity County X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

* The area designated for carbon monoxide is a county or portion of a county

C-14
FIGURE 5

NO
co

SAN FRA

BAY ARE
f,·:\ '((!j Attainment
~ Nonattainment
-Air Basin
--- County
Sou rce Date:

October 2018
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

NITROGEN DIOXIDE
0 50

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
-CA 60 (Portion)

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
N
A
100 200
Miles
C-15

TABLE 5

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Nitrogen Dioxide

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X CA 60 Near-road Portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties X
Remainder of Air Basin X

C-16
FIGURE 6

N
C
. .:•·· '. '!•=·
z;::jµ;::~*"~~~·-•.:;,<~~-:.:M:
~ Attainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

SULFUR DIOXIDE
N
A
200
--==---===-------• Miles
50 100

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
C-17

TABLE 6

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Sulfur Dioxide*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

* The area designated for sulfur dioxide is a county or portion of a county

C-18
FIGURE 7

['/:(fr:J Attainment
- Air Basin
--- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

SULFATES
N
A
200
--==---===-------• Miles
50 100

MOUNTA IN COUNTIES
C-19

TABLE 7

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Sulfates

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

C-20
FIGURE 8

NO Del ~~rt~ iiikl}M:'.::'.~;?E~~ftI-J\jiimW:
co

SAN FRA

BAY ARE
San Mateo~ i f ~p{
Santa·cruz
rI't
NORTH • '.--r-'

CENTRAL
COAST
[/'.}\{;:'j Attainme nt
- Air Basin
--- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
LEAD
N
A
0 50 100 200
Mites

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
C-21

TABLE 8

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Lead (particulate)*

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

* The area designated for lead is a county or portion of a county. Since all areas in the State are in attainment for this standard, air basins are indicated here for simplicity.

C-22
FIGURE 9

Siskiyou
CJ Unclassified
I: :=;\i-,J Attainment
~ Nonattainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Modoc

NORTHEAST

PLATEAU
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

HYDROGEN SULFIDE
0 50

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES

SOUTH COAS
N
A
100
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
200
Miles
C-23

TABLE 9

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Hydrogen Sulfide*

N NA-T U A N NA-T U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X Alpine County X NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
Inyo County X Del Norte County X
Mono County X Humboldt County X
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Mendocino County X
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Sonoma County (portion)
MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN - Geyser Geothermal Area (2) X Kern County (portion) X - Remainder of County X Los Angeles County (portion) X Trinity County X Riverside County (portion) X NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X San Bernardino County (portion) SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X - Searles Valley Planning Area (1) X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X - Remainder of County X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X Amador County SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
- City of Sutter Creek X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN - Remainder of County X San Luis Obispo County X Calaveras County X Santa Barbara County X
El Dorado County (portion) X Ventura County X
Mariposa County X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X
Nevada County X
Placer County (portion) X
Plumas County X
Sierra County X
Tuolumne County X

* The area designated for hydrogen sulfide is a county or portion of a county (1) 52 Federal Register 29384 (August 7, 1987)
(2) California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(d)

C-24
FIGURE 10

Siskiyou
D Unclassified
l:':'·:'::/('I Attainment
- Air Basin
--county
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Modoc
2018
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

VISIBILITY REDUCING PARTICLES
N
A
200
--==---===-------• Miles
50 100

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES

MOJAVE DESER T
San Bernardino

SOUTH COAS
C-25

TABLE 10

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designation for Visibility Reducing Particles

N NA-T U A N NA-T U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SALTON SEA AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN X

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

C-26
Area Designations for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The following maps and tables show the area designations for each pollutant with a national ambient air quality standard. Additional information about the federal area designations is available on the U.S. EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/green-book
Over the last several years, U.S. EPA has been reviewing the levels of the various national standards. The agency has already promulgated new standard levels for some pollutants and is considering revising the levels for others. Information about the status of these reviews is available on the U.S. EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants
Designation Categories
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10). The U.S. EPA uses three categories to designate areas with respect to PM10:
• Attainment
• Nonattainment
• Unclassifiable
Ozone, Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The U.S. EPA uses two categories to designate areas with respect to these standards:
• Nonattainment
• Unclassifiable/Attainment
The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005, and the area designations map reflects the 2015 national 8-hour ozone standard of

0.070 ppm. Original designations were finalized on August 3, 2018.

On December 14, 2012, the U.S. EPA established a new national annual primary PM2.5 standard of 12.0 µg/m3. New area designations reflecting this revised standard became final in December 2014. The current designation map reflects the most recently revised (2012) annual average standard of 12.0 μg/m3 as well as the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3, revised in 2006.

On January 22, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new national 1-hour NO2 standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and retained the annual average standard of 53 ppb.

Designations for the primary NO
2 standard became effective on February 29, 2012. All
areas of California meet this standard.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). The U.S. EPA uses three categories to designate areas with respect to the 24-hour and annual average sulfur dioxide standards. These designation categories are:
• Nonattainment,
• Unclassifiable, and
• Attainment/Unclassifiable.

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). At the same time, U.S. EPA revoked the 24-hour and annual C-27
average standards. Area designations for the 1-hour SO2 standard were finalized on December 21, 2017 and are reflected in the area designations map.

Lead (particulate). The U.S. EPA promulgated a new rolling 3-month average lead standard in October 2008 of 0.15 μg/m3. Designations were made for this standard in November 2010.

Designation Areas
From time to time, the boundaries of the California air basins have been changed to facilitate the planning process. CARB generally initiates these changes, and they are not always reflected in the U.S. EPA’s area designations. For purposes of consistency, the maps in this attachment reflect area designation boundaries and nomenclature as promulgated by the U.S. EPA. In some cases, these may not be the same as those adopted by CARB. For example, the national area designations reflect the former Southeast Desert Air Basin. In accordance with Health and Safety Code section 39606.1, CARB redefined this area in 1996 to be the Mojave Desert Air Basin and Salton Sea Air Basin. The definitions and boundaries for all areas designated for the national standards can be found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 81.305. They are available on the web at:
https://ecfr.io/Title-40/se40.20.81_1305

C-28
FIGURE 11

Tuscan Buttes

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
Siskiyou
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
NORTHEAST Modoc

PLATEAU
D Unclassified/Attainment
~ Nonattainment
- Air Basin
--County
Source Date :

October 2018
Air Qual ity Planning and Science Division
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
8-HOUR OZONE
N
A
200
----====----==== Miles
50 100 150
Sutter Buttes
GREAT
-----BASIN

VALLEYS

SAN DIEGO
Antelope Valley
and
C-29

TABLE 11

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for 8-Hour Ozone*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN (cont.)
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Yolo County (2) X
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Yuba County X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY X
Amador County X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X
Calaveras County X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
El Dorado County (portion) (2) X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN (1) Mariposa County X San Luis Obispo County
Nevada County - Eastern San Luis Obispo County X
- Western Nevada County X - Remainder of County X
- Remainder of County X Santa Barbara County X
Placer County (portion) (2) X Ventura County
Plumas County X - Area excluding Anacapa and San
Nicolas Islands X
Sierra County X - Channel Islands (1) X
Tuolumne County X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (1) X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X Kern County (portion) X
NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X - Indian Wells Valley X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN Imperial County X
Butte County X Los Angeles County (portion) X
Colusa County X Riverside County (portion)
Glenn County X - Coachella Valley X
Sacramento Metro Area (2) X - Non-AQMA portion X
Shasta County X San Bernardino County
Sutter County - Western portion (AQMA) X
- Sutter Buttes X - Eastern portion (non-AQMA) X
- Southern portion of Sutter
County (2) X
- Remainder of Sutter County X
Tehama County
- Tuscan Buttes X
- Remainder of Tehama County X
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

NOTE: This map and table reflect the 2015 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm.

(1) South Central Coast Air Basin Channel Islands:

Santa Barbara County includes Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara Islands.

Ventura County includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands.

South Coast Air Basin:

Los Angeles County includes San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands. (2) For this purpose, the Sacramento Metro Area comprises all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, the Sacramento Valley Air Basin portion of Solano County, the southern portion of Sutter County, and the Sacramento Valley and Mountain Counties Air Basins portions of Placer and El Dorado counties.

C-30
FIGURE 12

Siskiyou I
NORTHEASlModoc
LAKE
COUN

SAN FRANC

BAY AREA
San Fra
San Ma

PLATEAU
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
D Unclassified
l:;:\\. i{{J Attainment
~ Nonattainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Lassen
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM10
0 50
Basin
Mammoth
Lake GREAT
N
A
100
BASIN

VALLEYS

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
150 200
Miles
C-31

TABLE 12

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)*

N U A N U A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR

BASIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY X
Alpine County X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X
Inyo County SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X
- Owens Valley Planning Area X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X - Coso Junction X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X
- Remainder of County X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
Mono County Eastern Kern County
- Mammoth Lake Planning Area X - Indian Wells Valley X - Mono Lake Basin X - Portion within San Joaquin Valley Planning Area X
- Remainder of County X - Remainder of County X LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X Imperial County
LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X - Imperial Valley Planning Area X MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN - Remainder of County X Placer County (portion) (2) X Los Angeles County (portion) X Remainder of Air Basin X Riverside County (portion)

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR
BASIN X - Coachella Valley (3) X
NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X - Non-AQMA portion X
NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X San Bernardino County SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN - Trona X
Butte County X - Remainder of County X
Colusa County X
Glenn County X
Placer County (portion) (2) X
Sacramento County (1) X
Shasta County X
Solano County (portion) X
Sutter County X
Tehama County X
Yolo County X
Yuba County X

* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305. (1) Air quality in Sacramento County meets the national PM10 standards. The request for redesignation to attainment was approved by U.S. EPA in September 2013.
(2) U.S. EPA designation puts the Sacramento Valley Air Basin portion of Placer County in the Mountain Counties Air Basin.
(3) Air quality in Coachella Valley meets the national PM10 standards. A request for redesignation to attainment has been submitted to U.S. EPA.

C-32
FIGURE 13

Del Norte Siskiyou
Modoc

NORTHEAST PLATEAU NORTH COAST

LAKE COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
D Unclassified/Attainment
m Nonattainment
- Air Basin
--Count y
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM2.5
N
A
0 200
----=====----= ==:1 M,les
50 100 150

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
-
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
San Bernardino

SOUTHEAST DESERT
Riverside

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
C-33

TABLE 13

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO COUNTY X
LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN (2) X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X Plumas County SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (3) X
- Portola Valley Portion of Plumas X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN - Remainder of Plumas County X Imperial County (portion) (4) X Remainder of Air Basin X Remainder of Air Basin X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Sacramento Metro Area (1) X
Sutter County X
Yuba County (portion) X
Remainder of Air Basin X

* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305. This map reflects the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 standard as well as the 1997 and 2012 PM2.5 annual standards. (1) For this purpose, Sacramento Metro Area comprises all of Sacramento and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Yolo Counties. Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017. (2) Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017.
(3) Those lands of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahulla Mission Indians in Riverside County are designated Unclassifiable/Attainment.
(4) That portion of Imperial County encompassing the urban and surrounding areas of Brawley, Calexico, El Centro, Heber, Holtville, Imperial, Seeley, and Westmorland. Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017.

C-34
FIGURE 14

SAN FRANCI

BAY AREA
Siskiyou Modoc

NORTHEAST

PLATEAU
D Unclassified/Attainment
- Air Basin
--County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARBON MONOXIDE
N
A
0 50 100 150 200
Miles

SOUTHEAST DESERT
San Bernardino
Imper ial

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
C-35

TABLE 14

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Carbon Monoxide*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO COUNTY X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN X

* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

C-36
FIGURE 15

Siskiyou
NORTHEAST Modoc

PLATEAU
D Unclassified/Attainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date :

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Lassen
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

NITROGEN DIOXIDE
N
A
0 50 100 150 200
Miles

SOUTHEAS T DESERT
San Bernardino
C-37

TABLE 15

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Nitrogen Dioxide*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO COUNTY X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN X

* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

C-38
FIGURE 16

Siskiyou
NORTHEAST Modoc

PLATEAU

SAN FRANCI
BAY AREA Ma
D Unclassified /Attainment
- Air Basin
-- County
Source Date:

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Lassen
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

SULFUR DIOXIDE
N
A
0 50 100 150 200
Miles

SOUTHEAST DESERT
San Bernardino
c::,
C-39

TABLE 16

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Sulfur Dioxide*

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X San Luis Obispo County X LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X Santa Barbara County X
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X Ventura County X
NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X Channel Islands (1) X

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X Imperial County X
SAN DIEGO COUNTY X Remainder of Air Basin X

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
Fresno County X
Kern County (portion) X
Kings County X
Madera County X
Merced County X
San Joaquin County X
Stanislaus County X
Tulare County X

* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

NOTE: This map and table reflect the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb. (1) South Central Coast Air Basin Channel Islands:

Santa Barbara County includes Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara Islands.

Ventura County includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands.

Note that the San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands are considered part of Los Angeles County, and therefore, are included as part of the South Coast Air Basin.

C-40
FIGURE 17

SAN FRANCI

BAY AREA
Siskiyou Modoc

NORTHEAST

PLATEAU
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAS T
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
D Unclassified/Attainment
~ Nonattainment
-Air Basin
--County
Source Date :

October 2018
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
LEAD
N
A
0 50 100 150 200
Miles
Kern

SOUTHEAST DESERT
San Bernardino
C-41

TABLE 17

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Area Designations for Lead (particulate)

N U/A N U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN X SAN DIEGO COUNTY X

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN X SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN X

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN X

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN X SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN X SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
NORTH COAST AIR BASIN X Los Angeles County (portion) (1) X NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN X Remainder of Air Basin X

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN X SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN X

(1) Portion of County in Air Basin, not including Channel Islands

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 3.1:

CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area is 9.98 acres
Construction Phase - Construction anticipated to begin August 2022 and end in July 2023 Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Manufacturing 33.06 1000sqft 0.76 33,060.00 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 33.06 1000sqft 0.76 33,060.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 154.27 1000sqft 3.54 154,270.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 173.37 1000sqft 3.98 173,366.00 0 Parking Lot 134.00 Space 0.94 41,076.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I
1 I
• I I I
------------------------------1-------------------------------~--------------l------------------i--------------- • I I I
• I I I
------------------------------1-------------------------------~--------------I------------------~--------------- • I I I
• I I I
------------------------------1-------------------------------~--------------I------------------~--------------- • I I I
• I I I
------------------------------~------------------------------wi---------------~-----------------~--------------- Trips and VMT - Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction
Grading - This analysis conservatively assumes that the entire Project site (approximately 10 acres) can be disturbed per day Architectural Coating - Rule 1113
Vehicle Trips - Construction run only
Energy Use - Construction run only
Water And Wastewater - Construction run only
Solid Waste - Construction run only
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Rule 403
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100.00 50.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.93 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.37 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.17 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 5.02 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 36.52 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.82 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 17.13 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 48.51 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.03 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 1.97 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.95 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.33 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 15.20 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 3.22 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 1.98 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 200.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
I
■ I
-----------------------------~-----------------------------.;..-----------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~-----------------------------.;..-----------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~-----------------------------.;..-----------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~-----------------------------.;..-----------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t--------------------------■ ■ I ■ I
-----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------4-------------------------- tblGrading AcresOfGrading 35.00 100.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 53,600.00 41,076.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.21 0.94
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 40.99 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 31.08 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 145.01 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 3.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 5.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 71.00 63.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 13.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.42 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.09 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 3.93 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 7,645,125.00 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 7,645,125.00 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 35,674,937.50 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------

2.0 Emissions Summary

0.4091 0.0773 0.4863 0.1267 0.0718 0.1985 0.0000 323.6733 323.6733 0.0633 8.5400e- 003
327.7983
2023 1.1895 2.2991 2.0185 5.6900e-
003

0.1905 0.0929 0.2834 0.0513 0.0867 0.1380 0.0000 509.5452 509.5452 0.0863 0.0150 516.1715 Maximum 1.1895 2.2991 2.0185 5.6900e-
003

0.4091 0.0929 0.4863 0.1267 0.0867 0.1985 0.0000 509.5452 509.5452 0.0863 0.0150 516.1715 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1941 1.9164 1.2580 3.6300e-
003

0.2202 0.0773 0.2975 0.0658 0.0718 0.1376 0.0000 323.6730 323.6730 0.0633 8.5400e- 003
327.7980
2023 1.1895 2.2991 2.0185 5.6900e-
003

0.1905 0.0929 0.2834 0.0513 0.0867 0.1380 0.0000 509.5448 509.5448 0.0863 0.0150 516.1712 Maximum 1.1895 2.2991 2.0185 5.6900e-
003

0.2202 0.0929 0.2975 0.0658 0.0867 0.1380 0.0000 509.5448 509.5448 0.0863 0.0150 516.1712 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,-------,-------,-------,-------"T ------- ., .,
I
I I
'
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------"T"-------1' - - - - - --1-------,-------,-------,-------"T ------- •• I •• I I
I
ROG NOx 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 31.50 0.00 24.54 34.25 0.00 18.11 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 8-1-2022 10-31-2022 1.2866 1.2866
2 11-1-2022 1-31-2023 1.1528 1.1528
3 2-1-2023 4-30-2023 1.0181 1.0181
4 5-1-2023 7-31-2023 2.0604 2.0604
Highest 2.0604 2.0604

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I
I

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/1/2022 8/12/2022 5 10 2 Grading Grading 8/13/2022 9/9/2022 5 20
3 Building Construction Building Construction 9/10/2022 7/28/2023 5 230 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
■ ■ I
-------~------------------------=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- ■ ■ I I I I I
■ ■ I I I I I
-------~------------------------~----------------------+-------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/5/2023 7/28/2023 5 40 5 Paving Paving 7/3/2023 7/28/2023 5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Crawler Tractors 3 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 3 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 330,585; Non-Residential Outdoor: 110,195; Striped Parking Area:
12,867 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 100
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 200
Acres of Paving: 4.92
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-------•------------------------•----------------------+------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- I I
I
I
I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------+--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------+--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------+--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------+--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- -------------t---------T--------------1 I I I
----------------------------~---------------------------1----------------- ~ ------------1--------------~-------------- ■
.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.1434 0.0000 0.1434 0.0554 0.0000 0.0554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0224 0.2521 0.1000 2.8000e-
004

0.0108 0.0108 9.9300e-
003

9.9300e-
003

0.0000 25.0258 25.0258 8.0900e-
003

0.0000 25.2281
Total 0.0224 0.2521 0.1000 2.8000e-
004

0.1434 0.0108 0.1542 0.0554 9.9300e-
003

0.0653 0.0000 25.0258 25.0258 8.0900e-
003

0.0000 25.2281
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 3.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 5.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 183.00 63.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 37.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied • I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------t-----------1- ---------~----------1-----------1-----------l----------1--------------1-----------I- ---------- • I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------t-----------1- ---------~----------1-----------1-----------l----------1--------------1-----------I- ---------- • I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------t-----------1- ---------~----------1-----------1-----------l----------1--------------1-----------I- ---------- • I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I
----------------~---------------1-----------~---------+---------~-----------I-----------~---------~------------~---------!----------- ■
■
. . . .
&
•• &
•• &
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-.... --.... ··-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------... -------.. -.... -··-------~-------~-------~-------~ -.... --.. .. &
&
&
&

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2627 0.2627 0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.2744
Worker 3.1000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.7822 0.7822 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.7892
Total 3.3000e-
004

9.1000e-
004

3.2900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0449 1.0449 2.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

1.0635
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 0.0559 0.0000 0.0559 0.0216 0.0000 0.0216 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0224 0.2521 0.1000 2.8000e-
004

0.0108 0.0108 9.9300e-
003

9.9300e-
003

0.0000 25.0257 25.0257 8.0900e-
003

0.0000 25.2281
Total 0.0224 0.2521 0.1000 2.8000e-
004

0.0559 0.0108 0.0667 0.0216 9.9300e-
003

0.0315 0.0000 25.0257 25.0257 8.0900e-
003

0.0000 25.2281
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2627 0.2627 0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.2744
Worker 3.1000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.7822 0.7822 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.7892
Total 3.3000e-
004

9.1000e-
004

3.2900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0449 1.0449 2.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

1.0635
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.1663 0.0000 0.1663 0.0446 0.0000 0.0446 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0293 0.3385 0.1550 4.4000e-
004

0.0135 0.0135 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 38.5139 38.5139 0.0125 0.0000 38.8253 Total 0.0293 0.3385 0.1550 4.4000e-
004

0.1663 0.0135 0.1798 0.0446 0.0124 0.0570 0.0000 38.5139 38.5139 0.0125 0.0000 38.8253 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 8.0000e-
005

2.2200e-
003

7.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8756 0.8756 1.0000e-
005

1.3000e-
004

0.9145
Worker 5.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

5.1100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.3037 1.3037 3.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

1.3153
Total 6.0000e-
004

2.6300e-
003

5.8600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.0100e-
003

5.3000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

5.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.1793 2.1793 4.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

2.2298
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 0.0649 0.0000 0.0649 0.0174 0.0000 0.0174 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0293 0.3385 0.1550 4.4000e-
004

0.0135 0.0135 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 38.5138 38.5138 0.0125 0.0000 38.8252 Total 0.0293 0.3385 0.1550 4.4000e-
004

0.0649 0.0135 0.0784 0.0174 0.0124 0.0298 0.0000 38.5138 38.5138 0.0125 0.0000 38.8252 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

2.2200e-
003

7.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8756 0.8756 1.0000e-
005

1.3000e-
004

0.9145
Worker 5.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

5.1100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.3037 1.3037 3.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

1.3153
Total 6.0000e-
004

2.6300e-
003

5.8600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.0100e-
003

5.3000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

5.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.1793 2.1793 4.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

2.2298
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.1119 1.1906 0.7068 1.7200e-
003

0.0510 0.0510 0.0476 0.0476 0.0000 149.1605 149.1605 0.0405 0.0000 150.1722 Total 0.1119 1.1906 0.7068 1.7200e-
003

0.0510 0.0510 0.0476 0.0476 0.0000 149.1605 149.1605 0.0405 0.0000 150.1722 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - - ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '

I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I
I
I

I I I I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I

0.1119 0.0377 4.6000e-
004

0.0159 1.5400e-
003

0.0175 4.5900e-
003

1.4700e-
003

6.0600e-
003

0.0000 44.1296 44.1296 4.6000e-
004

6.5500e-
003

46.0926
Worker 0.0256 0.0199 0.2494 6.9000e-
004

0.0805 4.1000e-
004

0.0809 0.0214 3.8000e-
004

0.0217 0.0000 63.6194 63.6194 1.7000e-
003

1.7600e-
003

64.1867
Total 0.0296 0.1318 0.2870 1.1500e-
003

0.0964 1.9500e-
003

0.0983 0.0260 1.8500e-
003

0.0278 0.0000 107.7490 107.7490 2.1600e-
003

8.3100e-
003
110.2793
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 0.1119 1.1906 0.7068 1.7200e-
003

0.0510 0.0510 0.0476 0.0476 0.0000 149.1603 149.1603 0.0405 0.0000 150.1720 Total 0.1119 1.1906 0.7068 1.7200e-
003

0.0510 0.0510 0.0476 0.0476 0.0000 149.1603 149.1603 0.0405 0.0000 150.1720 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - - ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '

I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I
I
I

I I I I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I

0.1119 0.0377 4.6000e-
004

0.0159 1.5400e-
003

0.0175 4.5900e-
003

1.4700e-
003

6.0600e-
003

0.0000 44.1296 44.1296 4.6000e-
004

6.5500e-
003

46.0926
Worker 0.0256 0.0199 0.2494 6.9000e-
004

0.0805 4.1000e-
004

0.0809 0.0214 3.8000e-
004

0.0217 0.0000 63.6194 63.6194 1.7000e-
003

1.7600e-
003

64.1867
Total 0.0296 0.1318 0.2870 1.1500e-
003

0.0964 1.9500e-
003

0.0983 0.0260 1.8500e-
003

0.0278 0.0000 107.7490 107.7490 2.1600e-
003

8.3100e-
003
110.2793
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1914 1.9653 1.3010 3.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0838 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 279.5199 279.5199 0.0755 0.0000 281.4082 Total 0.1914 1.9653 1.3010 3.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0838 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 279.5199 279.5199 0.0755 0.0000 281.4082 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - - ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '

I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I
I
I

I I I I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I

0.1620 0.0645 8.3000e-
004

0.0299 1.3500e-
003

0.0312 8.6100e-
003

1.2900e-
003

9.9000e-
003

0.0000 79.4984 79.4984 8.0000e-
004

0.0118 83.0215
Worker 0.0446 0.0330 0.4309 1.2500e-
003

0.1509 7.2000e-
004

0.1516 0.0401 6.6000e-
004

0.0407 0.0000 116.1590 116.1590 2.8600e-
003

3.0500e-
003
117.1384
Total 0.0497 0.1950 0.4954 2.0800e-
003

0.1807 2.0700e-
003

0.1828 0.0487 1.9500e-
003

0.0506 0.0000 195.6574 195.6574 3.6600e-
003

0.0148 200.1598
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 0.1914 1.9653 1.3010 3.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0838 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 279.5196 279.5196 0.0755 0.0000 281.4079 Total 0.1914 1.9653 1.3010 3.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0838 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 279.5196 279.5196 0.0755 0.0000 281.4079 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - - ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '

I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I
I
I

I I I I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I

0.1620 0.0645 8.3000e-
004

0.0299 1.3500e-
003

0.0312 8.6100e-
003

1.2900e-
003

9.9000e-
003

0.0000 79.4984 79.4984 8.0000e-
004

0.0118 83.0215
Worker 0.0446 0.0330 0.4309 1.2500e-
003

0.1509 7.2000e-
004

0.1516 0.0401 6.6000e-
004

0.0407 0.0000 116.1590 116.1590 2.8600e-
003

3.0500e-
003
117.1384
Total 0.0497 0.1950 0.4954 2.0800e-
003

0.1807 2.0700e-
003

0.1828 0.0487 1.9500e-
003

0.0506 0.0000 195.6574 195.6574 3.6600e-
003

0.0148 200.1598
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0348 0.0483 8.0000e-
005

1.8900e-
003

0.0000 6.8087 6.8087 4.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.8189
Total 0.9288 0.0348 0.0483 8.0000e-
005

1.8900e-
003

0.0000 6.8087 6.8087 4.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.8189
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.4000e-
003

1.7800e-
003

0.0232 7.0000e-
005

8.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.1700e-
003

2.1600e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
003

0.0000 6.2629 6.2629 1.5000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

6.3157
Total 2.4000e-
003

1.7800e-
003

0.0232 7.0000e-
005

8.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.1700e-
003

2.1600e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
003

0.0000 6.2629 6.2629 1.5000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

6.3157
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 0.9236 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.1100e-
003

0.0348 0.0483 8.0000e-
005

1.8900e-
003

0.0000 6.8087 6.8087 4.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.8189
Total 0.9288 0.0348 0.0483 8.0000e-
005

1.8900e-
003

0.0000 6.8087 6.8087 4.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.8189
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

1.7800e-
003

0.0232 7.0000e-
005

8.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.1700e-
003

2.1600e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
003

0.0000 6.2629 6.2629 1.5000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

6.3157
Total 2.4000e-
003

1.7800e-
003

0.0232 7.0000e-
005

8.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.1700e-
003

2.1600e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
003

0.0000 6.2629 6.2629 1.5000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

6.3157
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.6900e-
003

0.0000 20.0269 20.0269 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 20.1888
Paving 6.4500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0168 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.6900e-
003

0.0000 20.0269 20.0269 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 20.1888
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 4.9000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

4.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2695 1.2695 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2802
Total 4.9000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

4.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2695 1.2695 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2802
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 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.6900e-
003

0.0000 20.0268 20.0268 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 20.1888
Paving 6.4500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0168 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.6900e-
003

0.0000 20.0268 20.0268 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 20.1888
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I

3.6000e-
004

4.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2695 1.2695 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2802
Total 4.9000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

4.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6600e-
003

4.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2695 1.2695 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2802
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - --,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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
Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
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 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--------. --.,..-------,.-------.--------.--------.--------.--------,.-------.--------.--------.--------• -. -----,--------.--------,--------.-------.... -----. -., ., ., ., I I
I I
~•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l--------------~-----------i·········••4••······················1·························· • I I ■ ■
~•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l--------------~-----------t·········••4------------------------1-------------------------- • I I ■ ■
~•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l--------------~-----------t··········•4------------------------I-------------------------- • I I - -
~-------------------------------------1--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------I-------------------------- : I I - -
I I

I I I I I I
- I I - - -
• I I ■ I I - - -~-----------------------r----------r---------T-•-----•--T---------r----••-••r-----•-•---r•-------------•-----•-r•-----•-•---••--- • I I ■ I I - - -
- I I - - ------------------------r----------r---------T-•••••••••T---------r•••••••••r•••••••••••r•••••••••••r••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• • I I - I I - - -
• I I ■ I I - ■ -~-----------------------r----------r---------T••••••••••T---------r•••••••••r•••••••••••r••••••••••••••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• • I I - I I - - -
• I I - I I - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - • _., - - - - • - - • - - T - - • - - • - - • T • • • • • • • • • • T - • - - • - - • ·r • - - • - - • - ·r • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • - • • • • - • r - • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Manufacturing 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Parking Lot 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468

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

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

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

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied .. ..

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - --=- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - --~ - - - - - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - -=----------l----------l----------l----------l----------1----------1----------1----------I----------I----------I----------I- - - - - - - - - I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .,..-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· - - - - - - -~-------,--------,--------,-------"T - - - - - - -.. ..

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Manufacturing 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - ,-------..-------T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T------,--------t - - - - - - -,-------T ______ T ______ T ______ "T - - - - - - - 1 • • I I I I I I I I I • 1 I I I I
"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------1--------· --------•------------------------------.. .. .. ..

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Manufacturing 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I
1, I
1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - ,-------..-------T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T ______ T------,--------t - - - - - - -,-------T ______ T ______ T ______ "T - - - - - - - 1 • • I I I I I I I I I • 1 I I I I
"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------1--------· --------•------------------------------.. .. .. ..

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Manufacturing 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
----------- ,-------..-------T------T------,- ------
I • • I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
I •• I I I
-----------1--------· -------.. .. .. ..

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
Manufacturing 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
----------- ,-------..-------T------T------,- ------
I • • I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
I •• I I I
-----------1--------· -------.. .. .. ..

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Unmitigated 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140

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

0.1051 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.8102 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Total 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
. -----. ----~-------,.-------.--------.--------,.-------.--------.--------.--------.--------,.-------• -------,-------.... -------.--------,.------.... ---. --. . , ., ., ., ' ' ' ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• '
'
' ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' '

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1051 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.8102 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Total 0.9160 6.0000e-
005

6.7300e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0131 0.0131 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0140
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Manufacturing 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
• - - - - - • - - - -~-------,.-------.--------r - - • - - -- ., .,
I,
I, ,.

I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • ,- - - - - - - '81--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I,
I,
,.

I 11 I I I
........... •-------e.-------T------T-------r · ..... .

I •• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
-----------1-------•~------------➔-------.. .. .. ..

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I, ,, ,,
I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • r- - - - - - - •1--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I, ,, ,,
I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • r- - - - - - - •1--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I, ,, ,,
I 11 I I I
----------- ,-------,.-------T------T------,- ------
I •• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
-----------1-------•~----+--------➔-------.. .. .. . ,
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Manufacturing 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
. --. -----. -.... ------..-----------------,. -----. - ., .,
I,
I,
1,
I 11 I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -,.. - - - - - -.. ,--------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - -I, I,
1,
I 11 I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -,.. - - - - - -.. ,-------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - -I, I,
1,
I 11 I I I
........... •-------•,-------T------T-------r ...... .

I •• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
........... I· ...... i' I I ! ...... .
m : :
•• I I
•• I I
•• I I

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• - - • - - • - - • - r - - - - - - ••-------,--------,-------"T - . - - . - -I, 1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• - - • - - • - - • - r - - - - - - ••--------,--------,-------"T - . - - . - -I, 1,
1,
I 11 I I I
""" """""" "" ,-------•,-------T------T-------y" """""" I •• I I I
•• I I I
•• I I I
..... - .... - I - - . - .. -i' I I ! ... - ...
' ., I
., I
•• I
•• I

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 34 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 3.2:

CALEEMOD MANUFACTURING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area (without Warehouse and High-Cube Cold Storage use) is 5.68 acres Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic analysis Fleet Mix - Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY). Truck Mix based on information in the Traffic analysis
Operational Off-Road Equipment - Based on SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Busniess Survey Results (2014)

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Manufacturing 33.06 1000sqft 0.76 33,060.00 0
User Defined Industrial 33.06 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0 Parking Lot 134.00 Space 0.94 41,076.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 173.37 1000sqft 3.98 173,366.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 1 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I
1 I
• • I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • • I I I
■ • I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • • I I I
■ • I I I
------------------------------1------------------------------~------------------------------wi---------------~-----------------~--------------- Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/26/2022 7/31/2022
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.63
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.06
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.19
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.10
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.15
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.25
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 2 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I
. . ---------------------------••y••-----------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y••-----------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------. . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•---------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•---------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•---------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•---------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•---------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T-------------------------------------------------------------. . -----------------------------T------------------------------.------------------------------

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 53,600.00 41,076.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.21 0.94
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperDaysPerYear 260.00 365.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperFuelType Diesel CNG
tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperHorsePower 97.00 200.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperHoursPerDay 8.00 4.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber 0.00 1.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.42 1.34
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.15
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.09 0.89
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.10
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 3.93 4.30
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.48
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 3 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■
-
■
-

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
2022 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 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
2022 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 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) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 4 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
Highest

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Energy 5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 117.7479 117.7479 6.2200e-
003

1.6700e-
003
118.4000
Mobile 0.0734 0.4073 0.8408 3.7000e-
003

0.2660 5.0100e-
003

0.2710 0.0719 4.7700e-
003

0.0767 0.0000 351.2712 351.2712 0.0101 0.0347 361.8663
Offroad 0.0201 0.1891 0.1367 5.8000e-
004

6.8600e-
003

6.3100e-
003

0.0000 50.7519 50.7519 0.0164 0.0000 51.1623
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.3206 0.0000 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4255 17.6543 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e- 003

28.1516
Total 0.2514 0.6488 1.0263 4.5900e-
003

0.2660 0.0159 0.2819 0.0719 0.0151 0.0870 10.7461 537.4345 548.1806 0.7751 0.0424 580.2039 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 5 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ., &
&
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T------- •• & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------1-------,-------,-------,-------T------- •• & ., &
&
&

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Energy 5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 117.7479 117.7479 6.2200e-
003

1.6700e-
003
118.4000
Mobile 0.0734 0.4073 0.8408 3.7000e-
003

0.2660 5.0100e-
003

0.2710 0.0719 4.7700e-
003

0.0767 0.0000 351.2712 351.2712 0.0101 0.0347 361.8663
Offroad 0.0201 0.1891 0.1367 5.8000e-
004

6.8600e-
003

6.3100e-
003

0.0000 50.7519 50.7519 0.0164 0.0000 51.1623
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.3206 0.0000 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4255 17.6543 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e- 003

28.1516
Total 0.2514 0.6488 1.0263 4.5900e-
003

0.2660 0.0159 0.2819 0.0719 0.0151 0.0870 10.7461 537.4345 548.1806 0.7751 0.0424 580.2039 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 7/31/2022 5 0
ROG NOx 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 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 6 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I • • • • • • • • • ' I • • • •
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I !
I
I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! ! !

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
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 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 4.92
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 7 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I
■ I I
■ I I
····························1---------------------------~---------------- ------------------··-····--····-• I I I ■ I I I
----------------------------~--------------------------~---------------·~ -----------~-------------~--------------■ I I I I ■ I I I I

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 8 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 9 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I
I
I
I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0734 0.4073 0.8408 3.7000e-
003

0.2660 5.0100e-
003

0.2710 0.0719 4.7700e-
003

0.0767 0.0000 351.2712 351.2712 0.0101 0.0347 361.8663
Unmitigated 0.0734 0.4073 0.8408 3.7000e-
003

0.2660 5.0100e-
003

0.2710 0.0719 4.7700e-
003

0.0767 0.0000 351.2712 351.2712 0.0101 0.0347 361.8663

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
Manufacturing 142.00 44.27 29.41 495,765 495,765
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 16.00 4.99 3.32 183,685 183,685 Total 158.00 49.26 32.73 679,450 679,450
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 Manufacturing 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3
Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
User Defined Industrial 40.00 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 10 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
----------- •r--------,--------,--------,--------,--------.--------,--------.--------,--------,--------• ------ -r--------.--------,--------,-------.... -------., ., ., ., I I
I I
~-····································•--------------r-----------t------------=-------------------------1-------------------------- ' I I • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ • • • • • ■ I- - - - - - - - - - - - - -r-----------t - -- - - - - -- - --I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • I I • •
~·····································=--------------r-----------t------------=-------------------------1-------------------------- • I I - -
I I

I I I I I I
I
I I
-----------------------r----------r---------T----------T---------r---------r-----------r-----------r----------r----------------- • I I - I I - - -
• I I - I I - - -~-----------------------r----------r---------T----------T---------r-••----••r-----------r----------------------r----------------- • I I - I I - - -
• I I - I I - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _., - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Manufacturing 0.576000 0.060300 0.185900 0.151900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.025900 0.000000 0.000000 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Parking Lot 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.098100 0.026900 0.250000 0.625000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

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 60.7110 60.7110 5.1200e- 003

6.2000e-
004

61.0242
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 60.7110 60.7110 5.1200e- 003

6.2000e-
004

61.0242
NaturalGas
Mitigated

5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

57.3758
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

57.3758

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 11 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I

I I I I I I I I I I I
----------------------- -=- ------- --=---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------~ -------- I

I I I I I I I I I I I
------------------------=----------=---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------~-------- I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -sr--------.--------.------- ..... -------,--------.--------.--------,------- ..... -------,--------• - - - - - --~-------.------- ..... -------,-------....,. - - - - - - -

5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

57.3758
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

57.3758
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 12 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1, I 1, I 1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I, I

5.7600e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

0.0524 0.0440 3.1000e-
004

3.9800e-
003

0.0000 57.0368 57.0368 1.0900e-
003

1.0500e-
003

57.3758
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 13 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1, I 1, I 1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I, I

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Manufacturing 327955 58.1614 4.9100e-
003

6.0000e-
004

58.4614
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 14376.6 2.5496 2.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.5628
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 60.7110 5.1300e-
003

6.3000e-
004

61.0242
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 14 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L L

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
Manufacturing 327955 58.1614 4.9100e-
003

6.0000e-
004

58.4614
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 14376.6 2.5496 2.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.5628
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 60.7110 5.1300e-
003

6.3000e-
004

61.0242
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 15 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L
I 11 I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------T•••••••
L
L
L L
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1521 4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Unmitigated 0.1521 4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003

0.0183 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.4000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Total 0.1521 4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 16 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0183 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.4000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Total 0.1521 4.0000e-
005

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.2700e-
003

9.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.8800e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 17 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Unmitigated 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Manufacturing 7.64513 /
0 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 18 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
• - - - - - • - - - -~-------,.-------.--------r - - • - - -- ., .,
I,
I, ,.

I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • ,- - - - - - - '81--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I,
I,
,.

I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • ,- - - - - - - '81--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I,
I, ,. ,.

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Manufacturing 7.64513 /
0 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 19 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • r- - - - - - - .. ,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • r- - - - - - - .. ,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • r- - - - - - - .. ,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • 1,
1,
1,
I,
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139
Unmitigated 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Manufacturing 40.99 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 8.3206 0.4917 0.0000 20.6139
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 20 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
. --. -----. -.... ------..-----------------,. -----. - ., .,
I,
I,
1,
I 11 I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -,.. - - - - - -.. ,--------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - -I, I,
1,
I 11 I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -,.. - - - - - -.. ,-------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - -I, I,
1,
I 11 I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -,.. - - - - - -.. ,-------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - -I, I,
1,
1,

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 365 200 0.37 CNG
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 21 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1,
1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• - - • - - • - - • - r - - - - - - ••-------,--------,-------"T - . - - . - -1, 1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• - - • - - • - - • - r - - - - - - ,.,--------,--------,-------"T - . - - . - -1, 1,
1,
I 11 I I I
• - - • - - • - - • - r - - - - - - ,.,--------,--------,-------"T - . - - . - -1, 1,
1,
I,

11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes

0.0201 0.1891 0.1367 5.8000e-
004

6.8600e-
003

6.3100e-
003

0.0000 50.7519 50.7519 0.0164 0.0000 51.1623
Total 0.0201 0.1891 0.1367 5.8000e-
004

6.8600e-
003

6.3100e-
003

0.0000 50.7519 50.7519 0.0164 0.0000 51.1623
UnMitigated/Mitigated

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 Date: 12/14/2021 12:46 PMPage 22 of 22 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Manufacturing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., I I I I I I I I I & '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I & '

I I I I
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 3.3:

CALEEMOD WAREHOUSING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic analysis Fleet Mix - Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY). Truck Mix based on information in the Traffic analysis

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 154.27 1000sqft 3.54 154,270.00 0 User Defined Industrial 154.27 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/26/2022 7/31/2022
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 1 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied l------------------------------1------------------------------~-------------------------t------------~-------------~---------------I I I I
I • I
-----------------------------~------------------------------=------------------------------t--------------------------• • I • I
-----------------------------~------------------------------=------------------------------~-------------------------- tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.62
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.06
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.19
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.13
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.04
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.15
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.21
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 2 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.10
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.05
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.04
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.02
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 1.11
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.61
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 3 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•------------------------------------------------------------

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) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 4 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
Highest

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Energy 1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 80.0203 80.0203 5.6700e-
003

9.5000e-
004

80.4461
Mobile 0.1114 1.9983 1.2757 0.0132 0.6417 0.0236 0.6652 0.1775 0.0225 0.2000 0.0000 1,261.940 1 1,261.940
1 0.0208 0.1652 1,311.690
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.4357 0.0000 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.3180 82.3812 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655 Total 0.7424 2.0135 1.2924 0.0133 0.6417 0.0247 0.6664 0.1775 0.0237 0.2012 40.7537 1,424.349 2 1,465.103
0 2.9355 0.1944 1,596.436
1 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 5 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ., &
&
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
&

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Energy 1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 80.0203 80.0203 5.6700e-
003

9.5000e-
004

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 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 6 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I !
I
I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! ! !

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
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 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 7 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I
■ I I
■ I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- -------------------------------• I I I ■ I I I
----------------------------~--------------------------~----------------~ -----------~-------------~--------------• I I I I ■ I I I I

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 8 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 9 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

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
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 172.00 14.96 5.99 539,344 539,344 User Defined Industrial 94.00 8.18 3.27 1,001,375 1,001,375 Total 265.99 23.14 9.26 1,540,719 1,540,719
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 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
User Defined Industrial 40.00 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.576000 0.060300 0.185900 0.151900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.025900 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 10 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I
I I I ■ I I ■ ■ ■
■ ■ • • ■ • ■ • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ ■ • • ■ • ■ ■ .. - • - - • - - • - - T - - - - - • - - - T • • • - • • • • - - .., - • - - - - - • ·r - - - • - - - - ·r • - • • • • - - • • • ~ - - • • • • - • • • • • • • • • - • • • • - r • • - • • • • - - • • • • - - • • .

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.133500 0.036700 0.212800 0.617000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

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 63.4731 63.4731 5.3600e- 003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 63.4731 63.4731 5.3600e- 003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 11 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I
I I I

I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------..--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------• ------ -~-------,--------,--------,-------....,. -------

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
310083 1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.6700e-
003

0.0152 0.0128 9.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

0.0000 16.5472 16.5472 3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

16.6455
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 12 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ,, ,, r ,, r ,,
-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------~-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------•------~----------- 1 I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
' ,,
' I I I I I I I I I If
1 I I I I I I I I I •t
I I I I I I I I I I I I I •t
-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------~-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------•------~----------- 1 I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ••
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ••
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
357906 63.4731 5.3600e-
003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 63.4731 5.3600e-
003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
357906 63.4731 5.3600e-
003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 63.4731 5.3600e-
003

6.5000e-
004

63.8006
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 13 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied • I
• I
• I
I I I
-----------~------•-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L • I
• I
• I
•• I I I
-----------~------•-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.6293 4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Unmitigated 0.6293 4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003

0.0715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5575 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Total 0.6293 4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 14 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - ~-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· - - - - - - -r--------,--------,--------,--------r - - - - - - -., ., ., ., I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I
I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I
I
I
I

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5575 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Total 0.6293 4.0000e-
005

3.9400e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.6600e-
003

7.6600e-
003

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.1600e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 15 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655
Unmitigated 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

35.6749 /
0 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 16 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
. -----. ----~-------,.-------.--------r --. ----
., .,
• I
• I
• I
•• I I I
-----------~--------------1-------1-------•-------,, ,. ,. ,.

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

35.6749 /
0 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 93.6992 1.1694 0.0283 131.3655
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
Unmitigated 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 17 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied • I
• I
• I
I I I
-----------~--------------1-------1-------•-------
., .,
1,
1,
I,
I,
■ I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .,..------"'T"-------r--------r - - - - - - -., .,

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
145.01 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
145.01 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 29.4357 1.7396 0.0000 72.9258
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 18 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied .. i
., I
., I
I I I
-----------~------~-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L .. i
•• I
•• I
•• I I I
-----------~------~-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L

11.0 Vegetation
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 Date: 12/14/2021 12:54 PMPage 19 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Warehousing Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 3.4:

CALEEMOD HIGH-CUBE COLD STORAGE OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL

OUTPUTS
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic analysis Fleet Mix - Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY). Truck Mix based on information in the Traffic analysis

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 33.06 1000sqft 0.76 33,060.00 0 User Defined Industrial 33.06 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2022 7/31/2022
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 1 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied l------------------------------1------------------------------~-------------------------t------------~-------------~---------------I I I I
I • I
-----------------------------~------------------------------=------------------------------t--------------------------• • I • I
-----------------------------~------------------------------=------------------------------~-------------------------- tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.22
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.06
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.19
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.44
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 7.3100e-003 0.12
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.15
tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 5.4680e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.22
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1000e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.1500e-004 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 2 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y------------------------------.------------------------------

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.15
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.05
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.06
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.02
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 1.69
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.54
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 3 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied : :
-----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•-----------------------------.------------------------------ ■ ■
-----------------------------y•------------------------------------------------------------

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) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 4 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
Highest

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Energy 9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 324.8461 324.8461 0.0215 4.0600e-
003
326.5935
Mobile 0.0334 0.3233 0.3692 2.2500e-
003

0.1493 3.2500e-
003

0.1526 0.0413 3.1000e-
003

0.0444 0.0000 213.0634 213.0634 4.1200e-
003

0.0207 219.3274
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.3090 0.0000 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4255 17.6543 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e- 003

28.1516
Total 0.1775 0.4071 0.4405 2.7500e-
003

0.1493 9.6200e-
003

0.1590 0.0413 9.4700e-
003

0.0508 8.7344 555.5654 564.2998 0.6490 0.0308 589.7043
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 5 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ., &
&
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•••••••••••a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., & ., &
&
&

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Energy 9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 324.8461 324.8461 0.0215 4.0600e-
003
326.5935
Mobile 0.0334 0.3233 0.3692 2.2500e-
003

0.1493 3.2500e-
003

0.1526 0.0413 3.1000e-
003

0.0444 0.0000 213.0634 213.0634 4.1200e-
003

0.0207 219.3274
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.3090 0.0000 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4255 17.6543 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e- 003

28.1516
Total 0.1775 0.4071 0.4405 2.7500e-
003

0.1493 9.6200e-
003

0.1590 0.0413 9.4700e-
003

0.0508 8.7344 555.5654 564.2998 0.6490 0.0308 589.7043
Mitigated Operational

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 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 6 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I !
I
I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
! ! !

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
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 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 7 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 8 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 9 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., ' ' '

I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
., I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '

I I I I

0.1493 3.2500e-
003

0.1526 0.0413 3.1000e-
003

0.0444 0.0000 213.0634 213.0634 4.1200e-
003

0.0207 219.3274
Unmitigated 0.0334 0.3233 0.3692 2.2500e-
003

0.1493 3.2500e-
003

0.1526 0.0413 3.1000e-
003

0.0444 0.0000 213.0634 213.0634 4.1200e-
003

0.0207 219.3274

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
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 56.00 4.87 1.95 175,605 175,605 User Defined Industrial 18.00 1.57 0.62 191,771 191,771 Total 74.00 6.44 2.57 367,377 367,377
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 Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
User Defined Industrial 40.00 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.576000 0.060300 0.185900 0.151900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.025900 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 10 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.435800 0.119800 0.222200 0.222200 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

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 233.5837 233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e- 003
234.7887
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 233.5837 233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e- 003
234.7887
NaturalGas
Mitigated

9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 11 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

I I I I I I I I I
I I I

1.71019e
+006

9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.71019e
+006

9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.2200e-
003

0.0838 0.0704 5.0000e-
004

6.3700e-
003

0.0000 91.2625 91.2625 1.7500e-
003

1.6700e-
003

91.8048
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 12 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ,, ,, r ,, r ,,
-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------~-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------•------~----------- 1 I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
' ,,
' I I I I I I I I I If
1 I I I I I I I I I •t
I I I I I I I I I I I I I •t
-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------~-------t-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------•------~----------- 1 I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ••
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ••
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■
I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I ,■

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.31711e
+006
233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e-
003
234.7887
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e-
003
234.7887
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.31711e
+006
233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e-
003
234.7887
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 233.5837 0.0197 2.3900e-
003
234.7887
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 13 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied • I
• I
• I
I I I
-----------~------•-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L • I
• I
• I
•• I I I
-----------~------•-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Unmitigated 0.1349 1.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003

0.0153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Total 0.1349 1.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 14 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Total 0.1349 1.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6400e-
003

1.6400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.7500e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 15 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Unmitigated 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

7.64513 /
0 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 16 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ., .,
I I I
■ I I I I
. -----. ----~-------,.-------.--------r --. ----
., .,
• I
• I
• I
•• I I I
-----------~--------------1-------1-------•-------,, ,. ,. ,.

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

7.64513 /
0 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 20.0797 0.2506 6.0600e-
003

28.1516
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
Unmitigated 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 17 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied • I
• I
• I
I I I
-----------~--------------1-------1-------•-------
., .,
1,
1,
I,
I,
■ I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .,..------"'T"-------r--------r - - - - - - -., .,

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

31.08 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

31.08 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.3090 0.3729 0.0000 15.6302
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 18 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied .. i
., I
., I
I I I
-----------~------~-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L .. i
•• I
•• I
•• I I I
-----------~------~-------1-------1-------•-------L L L L

11.0 Vegetation
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 Date: 12/14/2021 1:00 PMPage 19 of 19 Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

APPENDIX 3.5:

SCAQMD AMICUS BRIEF
S219783

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, and

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FRESNO,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
V.

COUNTY OF FRESNO,
Defendant and Respondent,
and,
FRIANT RANCH, L.P.,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

After a Published Decision by the Court of Appeal, filed May 27, 2014 Fifth Appellate District Case No. F066798
Appeal from the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno Case No. 11 CECG00726
Honorable Rosendo A. Pena, Jr.

APPLICATION OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR LEAVE TO FILE

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
AND [PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
Kurt R. Wiese, General Counsel (SBN 127251)
*Barbara Baird, Chief Deputy Counsel (SBN 81507)

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Telephone: 909-396-2302; Facsimile: 909-396-2961
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for [Proposed] Amicus Curiae,

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
a•o1.1v10
A~ft -e 2015
CLERK SUPREME.COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPLICATION FOR LEA VE TO FILE amicus curiae brief.. ............ App-1 HOW THIS BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT .............................. App-1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................ App-3 CERTIFICATION REGARDING AUTHORSHIP & FUNDING ...... App-4 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ..................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 2 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................. 2 A. Air Quality Regulatory Background ........................................... 2 B. The SCAQMD's Role Under CEQA .......................................... 6 II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT SET A HARD-AND-FAST

RULE CONCERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN EIR

MUST CORRELATE A PROJECT'S EMISSION OF
POLLUTANTS WITH RESULTING HEALTH IMPACTS ............. 8 III. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN EIR CONTAINS

SUFFICIENT ANALYSIS TO MEET CEQA'S

REQUIREMENTS IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT

AND LAW GOVERNED BY TWO DIFFERENT
STANDARDS OF REVIEW ................................................................ 16 A. Standard of Review for Feasibility Determination and Sufficiency as an Informative Document.. .............................. 16 B. Friant Ranch's Rationale for Rejecting the Independent Judgment Standard of Review is Unsupported by Case
Law ............................................................................................... 23 IV. COURTS MUST SCRUPULOUSLY ENFORCE THE

REQUIREMENTS THAT LEAD AGENCIES CONSULT

WITH AND OBTAIN COMMENTS FROM AIR
DISTRICTS ............................................................................................. 26 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 29

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
State Cases
Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal App.4th 1383 ................................................................................. 1, 9 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 ............................................................................... 9, 22 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners (2007) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 .................................................................... 21, 28 Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866 ..................................................................................... 20 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 .............................................................................................. 8-9 County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931 ....................................................................................... 23 Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881 ................................................................................................ 18 Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936 .................................................................. 21 Fall River Wild Trout Foundation v. County of Shasta, (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 482 ................................................................................. 27, 28 Gray v. County of Madera (2008)
167 Cal.App.4th 1099 ................................................................................... 25 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of the Univ of Cal. ("Laurel Heights I")
(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 .......................................................... 1, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22 Natural Res. Def Council v SCAQMD,
Los Angeles Superior Court No. BSl 10792 ................................................. 12 Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439 ......................................................................................... 15, 20 11 State Cases (cont'd)
Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Util. Com. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 945 ....................................................................................... 27 Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 .............................................................................. l 9 Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011)
198 Cal.App.4th 949 ............................................................................... 26, 27 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2014)
226 Cal.App.4th 704 (superseded by grant of review)
172 Cal.Rptr.3d 271 .................................................................................. 9, 23 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994)
7 Cal.4th 1215 ............................................................................................... 28 Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 587 ..................................................................................... 20 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc.
v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412 ................................................................... 1, 17, 19, 24, 25, 26 Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Monterey Bay Unified APCD (1989) 49 Cal.3d 408 ................................................................................................ 5 California Statutes
Health & Saf. Code § 39666 ......................................................................... 5 Health & Saf. Code § 40000 ......................................................................... 3 Health & Saf. Code § 40001 ......................................................................... 3 Health & Saf. Code § 40410 ......................................................................... 3 Health & Saf. Code §§ 40460, et seq ............................................................ 4 Health & Saf. Code § 41508 ......................................................................... 5 Health & Saf. Code §§ 42300, et seq ............................................................ 5 Health & Saf. Code § 44320 ......................................................................... 5 Health & Saf. Code § 44322 ......................................................................... 5 Health & Saf. Code§ 44360 ......................................................................... 5 Pub. Resources Code§ 20180.3 .................................................................. 27 Pub. Resources Code § 21061 ..................................................................... 19 Pub. Resources Code § 21061.1. ................................................................. 16 111
California Statutes (cont'd)
Pub. Resources Code § 21080 ....................................................................... 6 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.5 .................................................................... 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21083 .1 .................................................................. 26 Pub. Resources Code§ 21100 ..................................................................... 27 Pub. Resources Code§ 21104 .............................................................. 6, 7 26 Pub. Resources Code§§ 21150-21154 ......................................................... 7 Pub. Resources Code§ 21151.8 .................................................................. 25 Pub. Resources Code§ 21153 ............................................................ 6, 7, 26 California Ree;ulations
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") CEQA Guidelines§ 15050 .............................................................................. 6 CEQA Guidelines § 15051 .......................................................................... 1, 6 CEQA Guidelines§ 15073 ............................................................................ 6 CEQA Guidelines§ 15086 ............................................................................ 6 CEQA Guidelines§ 15088.5 ......................................................................... 28 CEQA Guidelines§ 15096 .............................................................................. 6 CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.2 ......................................................................... 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15131 ............................................................................ 26 CEQA Guidelines § 15144 ...................................................................... 19, 24 CEQA Guidelines§ 15151 .................................................................. 9, 18, 19 CEQA Guidelines § 15204 .................................................................... l, 9, 21 CEQA Guidelines§ 15251 ............................................................................ 6 CEQA Guidelines§ 15366 .............................................................................. 7 CEQA Guidelines§ 15381 .............................................................................. 6 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 60104 .................................................................... 3 Federal Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 7401; CAA§ 101 ...................................................................... 4 42 U.S.C. § 7408; CAA§ 108 ...................................................................... 3 42 U.S.C. § 7409; CAA§ 109 ...................................................................... 4 42 U.S.C. § 7410; CAA§ 110 .................................................................. 4, 5 42 U.S.C. § 7412; CAA§ 112 ...................................................................... 5 42 U.S.C. § 7502; CAA§ 172 ................................................................ 5, 13 42 U.S.C. § 7503; CAA§ 173 ................................................................ 5, 13 42 U.S.C. § 751 la; CAA§ 182 ................................................................... 13 42 U.S.C. § 7521; CAA§ 202 ...................................................................... 4 42 U.S.C. § 7543; CAA§ 209 ...................................................................... 4 42 U.S.C. § 7547; CAA§ 213 ...................................................................... 4 lV
Rules
SCAQMD Rule 1303 .................................................................................... 7 SCAQMD Rule 1401 ............................................................................ 5, 8, 9 Other
Association of Environmental Professionals, 2015 CEQA Statute and Guidelines (2015) (Appendix G, "Environmental Checklist Form." ........................................................................................................... 24 CARB, Health Impacts Analysis:

PM Premature Death Relationship ............................................................... 14 CARB, Health Impacts Analysis:

PM Mortality Relationship ............................................................................ 16 CARB, Resolution 98-35, Aug. 27, 1998 ....................................................... 8 SCAQMD, Air Quality Analysis Handbook ................................................. 13 SCAQMD, Final 2012 AQMP (Feb. 2013) .............................................. 3, 11 SCAQMD, Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for: Warren E&P, Inc. WTU Central Facility, New Equipment Project (certified July 19, 2011) ............................................................. 14-15 SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda, February 4, 2011, Agenda Item 26, Assessment for: Re-adoption of Proposed Rule 1315 - Federal New Source Review Tracking System, ............................................. 12 SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda, April 3, 2015,
Agenda Item 16, Attachment A .................................................................... 7 SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Summary form ................................... 10 SCAQMD, Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk
Assessments for the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB2588) .............................................................................. 10 U.S. EPA, Ground Level Ozone ................................................................... 11 U.S. EPA, Guideline on Ozone Monitoring Site Selection (Aug. 1998) EPA-454/R-98-002 § 5.1.2 ................................................................. 11 U.S. EPA, Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population, Figure 9, ........................................................................................................ 11 U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ..................... 4 U.S. EPA, Particulate Matter (PM) ................................................................ .4 V

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
Pursuant to Rule 8.520(±) of the California Rules of Court, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) respectfully requests leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief. Because SCAQMD's position differs from that of either party, we request leave to submit this amicus brief in support of neither party.

HOW THIS BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT
SCAQMD's proposed amicus brief takes a position on two of the issues in this case. In both instances, its position differs from that of either party. The issues are:
1) Does the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require an environmental impact report (EIR) to correlate a project's air pollution emissions with specific levels of health impacts?
2) What is the proper standard of review for determining whether an EIR provides sufficient information on the health impacts caused by a project's emission of air pollutants?
This brief will assist the Court by discussing the practical realities of correlating identified air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. In short, CEQA requires agencies to provide detailed information about a project's air quality impacts that is sufficient for the public and decisionmakers to adequately evaluate the project and meaningfully understand its impacts. However, the level of analysis is governed by a rule of reason; CEQA only requires agencies to conduct analysis if it is reasonably feasible to do so.

App-1
With regard to health-related air quality impacts, an analysis that correlates a project's air pollution emissions with specific levels of health impacts will be feasible in some cases but not others. Whether it is feasible depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the project and the nature of the analysis under consideration. The feasibility of analysis may also change over time as air districts and others develop new tools for measuring projects' air quality related health impacts. Because SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on the extent to which the Court should hold that CEQA requires lead agencies to correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes.

SCAQMD can also offer a unique perspective on the question of the appropriate standard of review. SCAQMD submits that the proper standard of review for determining whether an EIR is sufficient as an informational document is more nuanced than argued by either party. In our view, this is a mixed question of fact and law. It includes determining whether additional analysis is feasible, which is primarily a factual question that should be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. However, it also involves determining whether the omission of a particular analysis renders an EIR insufficient to serve CEQA's purpose as a meaningful, informational document. If a lead agency has not determined that a requested analysis is infeasible, it is the court's role to determine whether the EIR nevertheless meets CEQA's purposes, and courts should not defer to the lead agency's conclusions regarding the legal sufficiency of an EIR 's analysis. The ultimate question of whether an EIR's analysis is "sufficient" to serve CEQA's informational purposes is predominately a question of law that courts should review de novo.

App-2
This brief will explain the rationale for these arguments and may assist the Court in reaching a conclusion that accords proper respect to a lead agency's factual conclusions while maintaining judicial authority over the ultimate question of what level of analysis CEQA requires.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The SCAQMD is the regional agency primarily responsible for air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin, which consists of all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of the Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. (Health & Saf. Code § 4041 O; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 60104.) The SCAQMD participates in the CEQA process in several ways. Sometimes it acts as a lead agency that prepares CEQA documents for projects. Other times it acts as a responsible agency when it has permit authority over some part of a project that is undergoing CEQA review by a different lead agency. Finally, SCAQMD also acts as a commenting agency for CEQA ,documents that it receives because it is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project.

In all of these capacities, SCAQMD will be affected by the decision in this case. SCAQMD sometimes submits comments requesting that a lead agency perform an additional type of air quality or health impacts analysis. On the other hand, SCAQMD sometimes determines that a particular type of health impact analysis is not feasible or would not produce reliable and informative results. Thus, SCAQMD will be affected by the Court's resolution of the extent to which CEQA requires EIRs to correlate emissions and health impacts, and its resolution of the proper standard of review.

App-3

CERTIFICATION REGARDING AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING
No party or counsel in the pending case authored the proposed amicus curiae brief in whole or in part, or made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. No person or entity other than the proposed Amicus Curiae made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.

DATED: April 3, 2015
Respectfully submitted,

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
KURT R. WIESE, GENERAL COUNSEL

BARBARA BAIRD, CHIEF DEPUTY COUNSEL
By:~~
Barbara Baird
Attorneys for [proposed} Amicus Curiae

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DIST/CT
App-4

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) submits that this Court should not try to establish a hard-and-fast rule concerning whether lead agencies are required to correlate emissions of air pollutants with specific health consequences in their environmental impact reports (EIR). The level of detail required in EIRs is governed by a few, core CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) principles. As this Court has stated, "[a]n EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405 ["Laurel Heights 1"]) Accordingly, "an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412,428 (quoting CEQA Guidelines§ 15144)1.). However, "[ a ]nalysis of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, but will be judged in light of what is reasonably feasible." (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1390; CEQA Guidelines§§ 15151, 15204(a).)
With regard to analysis of air quality related health impacts, EIRs must generally quantify a project's pollutant emissions, but in some cases it is not feasible to correlate these emissions to specific, quantifiable health impacts (e.g., premature mortality; hospital admissions). In such cases, a general description of the adverse health impacts resulting from the pollutants at issue may be sufficient. In other cases, due to the magnitude 1 The CEQA Guidelines are found at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 §§ 15000, et seq.
1 or nature of the pollution emissions, as well as the specificity of the project involved, it may be feasible to quantify health impacts. Or there may be a less exacting, but still meaningful analysis of health impacts that can feasibly be performed. In these instances, agencies should disclose those impacts.

SCAQMD also submits that whether or not an EIR complies with CEQA's informational mandates by providing sufficient, feasible analysis is a mixed question of fact and law. Pertinent here, the question of whether an EIR's discussion of health impacts from air pollution is sufficient to allow the public to understand and consider meaningfully the issues involves two inquiries: (1) Is it feasible to provide the information or analysis that a commenter is requesting or a petitioner is arguing should be required?; and (2) Even if it is feasible, is the agency relying on other policy or legal considerations to justify not preparing the requested analysis? The first question of whether an analysis is feasible is primarily a question of fact that should be judged by the substantial evidence standard.

The second inquiry involves evaluating CEQA's information disclosure purposes against the asserted reasons to not perform the requested analysis.

For example, an agency might believe that its EIR meets CEQA's informational disclosure standards even without a particular analysis, and therefore choose not to conduct that analysis. SCAQMD submits that this is more of a legal question, which should be reviewed de novo as a question oflaw.

ARGUMENT
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK.

A. Air Quality Regulatory Background
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is one of the local and regional air pollution control districts and air quality 2 management districts in California. The SCAQMD is the regional air pollution agency for the South Coast Air Basin, which consists of all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. (Health & Saf. Code § 40410, 17 Cal. Code Reg. § 60104.) The SCAQMD also includes the Coachella Valley in Riverside County (Palm Springs area to the Salton Sea). (SCAQMD, Final 2012 AQMP (Feb. 2013), http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan; then follow "chapter 7" hyperlink; pp 7-1, 7-3 (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) The SCAQMD's jurisdiction includes over 16 million residents and has the worst or nearly the worst air pollution levels in the country for ozone and fine particulate matter. (SCAQMD, Final 2012 AQMP (Feb. 2013), http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan; then follow "Executive Summary" hyperlink p. ES-1 (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) Under California law, the local and regional districts are primarily responsible for controlling air pollution from all sources except motor vehicles. (Health & Saf. Code§ 40000.) The California Air Resources Board (CARB), part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is primarily responsible for controlling pollution from motor vehicles. (Id.) The air districts must adopt rules to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards within their jurisdictions. (Health & Saf. Code § 40001.)
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify pollutants that are widely distributed and pose a threat to human health, developing a so-called "criteria" document. (42 U.S.C. § 7408; CAA§ 108.) These pollutants are frequently called "criteria pollutants." EPA must then establish "national ambient air quality standards" at levels "requisite to protect public health", 3 allowing "an adequate margin of safety." (42 U.S.C. § 7409; CAA§ 109.) EPA has set standards for six identified pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (PM), and lead. (U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (last updated Oct. 21, 2014).)2 Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets emission standards for motor vehicles and "nonroad engines" (mobile farm and construction equipment, marine vessels, locomotives, aircraft, etc.). (42 U.S.C. §§ 7521, 7547; CAA §§ 202, 213.) California is the only state allowed to establish emission standards for motor vehicles and most nonroad sources; however, it may only do so with EPA's approval. (42 U.S.C. §§ 7543(b), 7543(e); CAA§§ 209(b), 209(c).) Sources such as manufacturing facilities, power plants and refineries that are not mobile are often referred to as "stationary sources." The Clean Air Act charges state and local agencies with the primary responsibility to attain the national ambient air quality standards. (42 U.S.C. § 740l(a)(3); CAA§ 101(a)(3).) Each state must adopt and implement a plan including enforceable measures to achieve and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. (42 U.S.C. § 7410; CAA§ 110.) The SCAQMD and CARB jointly prepare portion of the plan for the South Coast Air Basin and submit it for approval by EPA. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 40460, et seq.)
The Clean Air Act also requires state and local agencies to adopt a permit program requiring, among other things, that new or modified "major" stationary sources use technology to achieve the "lowest achievable emission rate," and to control minor stationary sources as 2 Particulate matter (PM) is further divided into two categories: fine particulate or PM2_5 (particles with a diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 microns) and coarse particulate (PM10) (particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less). (U.S. EPA, Particulate Matter (PM),
http://www.epa.gov/airguality/particlepollution/ (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) 4 needed to help attain the standards. (42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(5), 7503(a)(2), 7410(a)(2)(C); CAA§§ 172(c)(5), 173(a)(2), l 10(a)(2)(C).) The air districts implement these permit programs in California. (Health & Saf.

Code§§ 42300, et seq.)
The Clean Air Act also sets out a regulatory structure for over 100 so-called "hazardous air pollutants" calling for EPA to establish "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) for sources of these pollutants. (42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2); CAA§ 112(d)(2).) California refers to these pollutants as "toxic air contaminants" (TA Cs) which are subject to two state-required programs. The first program requires "air toxics control measures" for specific categories of sources. (Health & Saf. Code § 39666.) The other program requires larger stationary sources and sources identified by air districts to prepare "health risk assessments" for impacts of toxic air contaminants. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 44320(b), 44322, 44360.) If the health risk exceeds levels identified by the district as "significant," the facility must implement a "risk reduction plan" to bring its risk levels below "significant" levels. Air districts may adopt additional more stringent requirements than those required by state law, including requirements for toxic air contaminants. (Health & Saf. Code § 41508; Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Monterey Bay Unified APCD (1989) 49 Cal.3d 408, 414.) For example, SCAQMD has adopted a rule requiring new or modified sources to keep their risks below specified levels and use best available control technology (BACT) for toxics. (SCAQMD, Rule 1401- New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants,
http://www. aqmd. gov /home/regulations/rules/ scaq md-rule-book/re gulation xi v; then follow "Rule 1401" hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) 5 B. The SCAQMD's Role Under CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to perform an environmental review and appropriate analysis for projects that they implement or approve. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(a).) The agency with primary approval authority for a particular project is generally the "lead agency" that prepares the appropriate CEQA document. (CEQA Guidelines§§ 15050, 15051.) Other agencies having a subsequent approval authority over all or part of a project are called "responsible" agencies that must determine whether the CEQA document is adequate for their use. (CEQA Guidelines§§ 15096(c), 15381.) Lead agencies must also consult with and circulate their environmental impact reports to "trustee agencies" and agencies "with jurisdiction by law" including "authority over resources which may be affected by the project." (Pub. Resources Code§§ 21104(a), 21153; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15086(a)(3), 15073(c).) The SCAQMD has a role in all these aspects of CEQA.

Fulfilling its responsibilities to implement its air quality plan and adopt rules to attain the national ambient air quality standards, SCAQMD adopts a dozen or more rules each year to require pollution reductions from a wide variety of sources. The SCAQMD staff evaluates each rule for any adverse environmental impact and prepares the appropriate CEQA document. Although most rules reduce air emissions, they may have secondary environmental impacts such as use of water or energy or disposal of waste---e.g., spent catalyst from control equipment.3 3 The SCAQMD's CEQA program for its rules is a "Certified Regulatory Program" under which it prepares a "functionally equivalent" document in lieu of a negative declaration or EIR. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.5, CEQA Guidelines§ 15251(1).)
6 The SCAQMD also approves a large number of permits every year to construct new, modified, or replacement facilities that emit regulated air pollutants. The majority of these air pollutant sources have already been included in an earlier CEQA evaluation for a larger project, are currently being evaluated by a local government as lead agency, or qualify for an exemption. However, the SCAQMD sometimes acts as lead agency for major projects where the local government does not have a discretionary approval. In such cases, SCAQMD prepares and certifies a negative declaration or environmental impact report (EIR) as appropriate. 4 SCAQMD evaluates perhaps a dozen such permit projects under CEQA each year. SCAQMD is often also a "responsible agency" for many projects since it must issue a permit for part of the projects (e.g., a boiler used to provide heat in a commercial building). For permit projects evaluated by another lead agency under CEQA, SCAQMD has the right to determine that the CEQA document is inadequate for its purposes as a responsible agency, but it may not do so because its permit program already requires all permitted sources to use the best available air pollution control technology. (SCAQMD, Rule 1303(a)(l) -Requirements,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/rules/scagmd-rule-book/regulation xiii; then follow "Rule 1303" hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) Finally, SCAQMD receives as many as 60 or more CEQA
documents each month ( around 500 per year) in its role as commenting agency or an agency with "jurisdiction by law" over air quality-a natural resource affected by the project. (Pub. Resources Code § § 21104( a), 21153; CEQA Guidelines§ 15366(a)(3).) The SCAQMD staff provides comments on as many as 25 or 30 such documents each month. 4 The SCAQMD's permit projects are not included in its Certified Regulatory Program, and are evaluated under the traditional local government CEQA analysis. (Pub. Resources Code§§ 21150-21154.) 7 (SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda, Apr. 3, 2015, Agenda Item 16, Attachment A, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/meeting-agendas minutes/agenda ?title=goveming-board-meeting-agenda-april-3-2015; then follow "16. Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by SCAQMD" hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) Of course, SCAQMD focuses its commenting efforts on the more significant projects.

Typically, SCAQMD comments on the adequacy of air quality analysis, appropriateness of assumptions and methodology, and completeness of the recommended air quality mitigation measures. Staff may comment on the need to prepare a health risk assessment detailing the projected cancer and noncancer risks from toxic air contaminants resulting from the project, particularly the impacts of diesel particulate matter, which CARB has identified as a toxic air contaminant based on its carcinogenic effects. (California Air Resources Board, Resolution 98-35, Aug. 27, 1998, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm; then follow Resolution 98-35 hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) Because SCAQMD already requires new or modified stationary sources of toxic air contaminants to use the best available control technology for toxics and to keep their risks below specified levels, (SCAQMD Rule 1401, supra, note 15), the greatest opportunity to further mitigate toxic impacts through the CEQA process is by reducing emissions-particularly diesel emissions-from vehicles.

II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT SET A HARD-AND-FAST

RULE CONCERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN EIR

MUST CORRELATE A PROJECT'S EMISSION OF
POLLUTANTS WITH RESULTING HEALTH IMP ACTS.

Numerous cases hold that courts do not review the correctness of an EIR's conclusions but rather its sufficiency as an informative document. (Laurel Heights 1, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. 8 Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 569; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.) As stated by the Court of Appeal in this case, where an EIR has addressed a topic, but the petitioner claims that the information provided about that topic is insufficient, courts must "draw[] a line that divides sufficient discussions from those that are insufficient." (Sierra Club v.

County of Fresno (2014) 226 Cal.App.4 th 704 (superseded by grant of review) 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 290.) The Court of Appeal readily admitted that "[t]he terms themselves - sufficient and insufficient - provide little, if any, guidance as to where the line should be drawn. They are simply labels applied once the court has completed its analysis." (Id.) The CEQA Guidelines, however, provide guidance regarding what constitutes a sufficient discussion of impacts. Section 15151 states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible." Case law reflects this: "Analysis of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, but will be judged in light of what was reasonably feasible." (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390; see also CEQA Guidelines§ 15204(a).) Applying this test, this Court cannot realistically establish a hard and-fast rule that an analysis correlating air pollution impacts of a project to quantified resulting health impacts is always required, or indeed that it is never required. Simply put, in some cases such an analysis will be "feasible"; in some cases it will not.

For example, air pollution control districts often require a proposed new source of toxic air contaminants to prepare a "health risk assessment" before issuing a permit to construct. District rules often limit the allowable cancer risk the new source may cause to the "maximally exposed individual" (worker and residence exposures). (See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 140l(c)(8); 140l(d)(l), supra note 15.) In order to perform this analysis, it 9 is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). (SCAQMD, Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB2588), pp. 11-16; (last visited Apr. 1, 2015) http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material; "Guidelines" hyperlink; AB2588; then follow AB2588 Risk Assessment Guidelines hyperlink.)
Thus, it is feasible to determine the health risk posed by a new gas station locating at an intersection in a mixed use area, where receptor locations are known. On the other hand, it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk-it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the project.

In order to find the "cancer burden" or expected additional cases of cancer resulting from the project, it is also necessary to know the numbers and location of individuals living within the "zone of impact" of the project: i.e., those living in areas where the projected cancer risk from the project exceeds one in a million. (SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Summary form, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/forms ; filter by "AB2588" category; then "Health Risk Assessment" hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) The affected population is divided into bands of those exposed to at least 1 in a million risk, those exposed to at least 10 in a million risk, etc. up to those exposed at the highest levels. (Id.) This data allows agencies to calculate an approximate number of additional cancer cases expected from 10 the project. However, it is not possible to predict which particular individuals will be affected.

For the so-called criteria pollutants5, such as ozone, it may be more difficult to quantify health impacts. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere from the chemical reaction of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. (U.S. EPA, Ground Level Ozone, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/ (last updated Mar. 25, 2015).) It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources. (U.S. EPA, Guideline on Ozone Monitoring Site Selection (Aug. 1998) EPA-454/R-98-002 § 5.1.2, http:/ /www.epa.gov/ttnamti 1/archive/cpreldoc.html (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) NOx and VOC are known as "precursors" of ozone.

Scientifically, health effects from ozone are correlated with increases in the ambient level of ozone in the air a person breathes. (U.S. EPA, Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population, Figure 9, http://www.epa.gov/ apti/ozonehealth/population.html#levels (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) However, it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region. For example, the SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP showed that reducing NOx by 432 tons per day (157,680 tons/year) and reducing VOC by 187 tons per day (68,255 tons/year) would reduce ozone levels at the SCAQMD's monitor site with the highest levels by only 9 parts per billion. (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 AQMP (February 2013), http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan; then follow "Appendix V: Modeling & Attainment Demonstrations" hyperlink, 5 See discussion of types of pollutants, supra, Part I.A. 11 pp. v-4-2, v-7-4, v-7-24.) SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects.

On the other hand, this type of analysis may be feasible for projects on a regional scale with very high emissions of NOx and VOCs, where impacts are regional. For example, in 2011 the SCAQMD performed a health impact analysis in its CEQA document for proposed Rule 1315, which authorized various newly-permitted sources to use offsets from the districts "internal bank" of emission reductions. This CEQA analysis accounted for essentially all the increases in emissions due to new or modified sources in the District between 2010 and 2030.6 The SCAQMD was able to correlate this very large emissions increase (e.g., 6,620 pounds per day NOx (1,208 tons per year), 89,180 pounds per day VOC (16,275 tons per year)) to expected health outcomes from ozone and particulate matter (e.g., 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences in the year 2030 due to ozone).7 (SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda, February 4, 2011, Agenda Item 26, Assessment for: Re-adoption of Proposed Rule 1315 - Federal New Source Review Tracking System (see hyperlink in fn 6) at p. 4.1-35, Table 4.1-29.)
6 (SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda, February 4, 2011, Agenda Item 26, Attachment G, Assessment for: Re-adoption of Proposed Rule 1315 - Federal New Source Review Tracking System, Vol. 1, p.4.0-6, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/meeting-agendas
minutes/agenda?title=governing-board-meeting-agenda-february-4-2011; the follow "26. Adopt Proposed Rule 1315 - Federal New Source Review Tracking System" (last visited April 1, 2015).)
7 The SCAQMD was able to establish the location of future NOx and VOC emissions by assuming that new projects would be built in the same locations and proportions as existing stationary sources. This CEQA document was upheld by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Natural Res. Def Council v SCAQMD, Los Angeles Superior Court No.

BS110792).
12 However, a project emitting only 10 tons per year ofNOx or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels. Thus, in this case it would not be feasible to directly correlate project emissions of VOC or NOx with specific health impacts from ozone. This is in part because ozone formation is not linearly related to emissions. Ozone impacts vary depending on the location of the emissions, the location of other precursor emissions, meteorology and seasonal impacts, and because ozone is formed some time later and downwind from the actual emission. (EPA Guideline on Ozone Monitoring Site Selection (Aug. 1998) EPA-454/R-98-002, § 5.1.2;
https://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/archive/cpreldoc.html; then search "Guideline on Ozone Monitoring Site Selection" click on pdf) (last viewed Apr. 1, 2015).)
SCAQMD has set its CEQA "significance" threshold for NOx and VOC at 10 tons per year (expressed as 55 lb/day). (SCAQMD, Air Quality Analysis Hand book, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ ceqa/ air quality-analysis-handbook; then follow "SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds" hyperlink (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) This is because the federal Clean Air Act defines a "major" stationary source for "extreme" ozone nonattainment areas such as SCAQMD as one emitting 10 tons/year. (42 U.S.C. §§ 751 la(e), 751 la(f); CAA§§ 182(e), 182(f).) Under the Clean Air Act, such sources are subject to enhanced control requirements (42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(5), 7503; CAA§§ l 72(c)(5), 173), so SCAQMD decided this was an appropriate threshold for making a CEQA "significance" finding and requiring feasible mitigation. Essentially, SC~QMD takes the position that a source that emits 10 tons/year ofNOx or VOC would contribute cumulatively to ozone formation. Therefore, lead agencies that use SCAQMD's thresholds of significance may determine 13 that many projects have "significant" air quality impacts and must apply all feasible mitigation measures, yet will not be able to precisely correlate the project to quantifiable health impacts, unless the emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional modeling program.

In the case of particulate matter (PM2_5)8, another "criteria" pollutant, SCAQMD staff is aware of two possible methods of analysis. SCAQMD used regional modeling to predict expected health impacts from its proposed Rule 1315, as mentioned above. Also, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed a methodology that can predict expected mortality (premature deaths) from large amounts of PM2_5_ (California Air Resources Board, Health Impacts Analysis: PM Premature Death Relationship, http://www.arb.ca. gov /research/health/pm-mort/pm mort arch.htm (last reviewed Jan. 19, 2012).) SCAQMD used the CARB methodology to predict impacts from three very large power plants (e.g., 731-1837 lbs/day). (Final Environmental Assessment for Rule 1315, supra, pp 4.0-12, 4.1-13, 4.1-37 (e.g., 125 premature deaths in the entire SCAQMD in 2030), 4.1-39 (0.05 to 1. 77 annual premature deaths from power plants.) Again, this project involved large amounts of additional PM2_5 in the District, up to 2.82 tons/day (5,650 lbs/day of PM2_5, or, or 1029 tons/year. (Id. at table 4.1-4, p. 4.1-10.)
However, the primary author of the CARB methodology has reported that this PM2_5 health impact methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results due to various uncertainties. 9 (SCAQMD, Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for: Warren 8 SCAQMD has not attained the latest annual or 24-hour national ambient air quality standards for "PM25" or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
9 Among these uncertainties are the representativeness of the population used in the methodology, and the specific source of PM and the corresponding health impacts. (Id. at p. 2-24.)
14 E&P, Inc. WTU Central Facility, New Equipment Project (certified July 19, 2011), http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/docmnents-support material/lead-agency-permit-projects/permit-project-documents---year- 2011; then follow "Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for Warren E&P Inc. WTU Central Facility, New Equipment Project" hyperlink, pp. 2-22, 2-23 (last visited Apr. 1, 2015).) Therefore, when SCAQMD prepared a CEQA document for the expansion of an existing oil production facility, with very small PM2_5 increases (3.8 lb/day) and a very small affected population, staff elected not to use the CARB methodology for using estimated PM2_5 emissions to derive a projected premature mortality number and explained why it would be inappropriate to do so. (Id. at pp 2-22 to 2-24.) SCAQMD staff concluded that use of this methodology for such a small source could result in unreliable findings and would not provide meaningful information. (Id. at pp. 2-23, 2-25.) This CEQA document was not challenged in court.

In the above case, while it may have been technically possible to plug the data into the methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful. SCAQMD believes that an agency should not be required to perform analyses that do not produce reliable or meaningful results. This Court has already held that an agency may decline to use even the "normal" "existing conditions" CEQA baseline where to do so would be misleading or without informational value. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 448, 457.) The same should be true for a decision that a particular study or analysis would not provide reliable or meaningful results. 10
10 Whether a particular study would result in "informational value" is a part of deciding whether it is "feasible." CEQA defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and 15 Therefore, it is not possible to set a hard-and-fast rule on whether a correlation of air quality impacts with specific quantifiable health impacts is required in all cases. Instead, the result turns on whether such an analysis is reasonably feasible in the particular case. II Moreover, what is reasonably feasible may change over time as scientists and regulatory agencies continually seek to improve their ability to predict health impacts. For example, CARB staff has been directed by its Governing Board to reassess and improve the methodology for estimating premature deaths. (California Air Resources Board, Health Impacts Analysis: PM Mortality Relationship, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm (last reviewed Dec. 29, 2010).) This factor also counsels against setting any hard-and-fast rule in this case.

III. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN EIR CONTAINS

SUFFICIENT ANALYSIS TO MEET CEQA'S

REQUIREMENTS IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND

LAW GOVERNED BY TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF
REVIEW.

A. Standard of Review for Feasibility Determination and Sufficiency as an Informative Document
A second issue in this case is whether courts should review an EIR's informational sufficiency under the "substantial evidence" test as argued by Friant Ranch or the "independent judgment" test as argued by Sierra Club. technological factors." (Pub. Resources Code§ 21061.1.) A study cannot be "accomplished in a successful manner" if it produces unreliable or misleading results.
11 In this case, the lead agency did not have an opportunity to determine whether the requested analysis was feasible because the comment was non specific. Therefore, SCAQMD suggests that this Court, after resolving the legal issues in the case, direct the Court of Appeal to remand the case to the lead agency for a determination of whether the requested analysis is feasible. Because Fresno County, the lead agency, did not seek review in this Court, it seems likely that the County has concluded that at least some level of correlation of air pollution with health impacts is feasible. 16 As this Court has explained, "a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts." (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 435.) For questions regarding compliance with proper procedure or other legal questions, courts review an agency's action de novo under the "independent judgment" test. (Id.) On the other hand, courts review factual disputes only for substantial evidence, thereby "accord[ing] greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions." (Id.) Here, Friant Ranch and Sierra Club agree that the case involves the question of whether an EIR includes sufficient information regarding a project's impacts. However, they disagree on the proper standard of review for answering this question: Sierra Club contends that courts use the independent judgment standard to determine whether an EIR's analysis is sufficient to meet CEQA's informational purposes, 12 while Friant Ranch contends that the substantial evidence standard applies to this question.

II I
I I I
I I I
Ill
Ill
Ill
I I I
Ill
Ill
12 Sierra Club acknowledges that courts use the substantial evidence standard when reviewing predicate factual issues, but argues that courts ultimately decide as a matter of law what CEQA requires. (Answering Brief, pp. 14, 23.)
17 SCAQMD submits that the issue is more nuanced than either party contends. We submit that, whether a CEQA document includes sufficient analysis to satisfy CEQA's informational mandates is a mixed question of fact and law, 13 containing two levels of inquiry that should be judged by different standards. 14
The state CEQA Guidelines set forth standards for the adequacy of environmental analysis. Guidelines Section 15151 states:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.

In this case, the basic question is whether the underlying analysis of air quality impacts made the EIR "sufficient" as an informative document.

However, whether the EIR's analysis was sufficient is judged in light of what was reasonably feasible. This represents a mixed question of fact and law that is governed by two different standards of review. 13 Friant Ranch actually states that the claim that an EIR lacks sufficient relevant information is, "most properly thought of as raising mixed questions of fact and law." (Opening Brief, p. 27.) However, the remainder of its argument claims that the court should apply the substantial evidence standard of review to all aspects of the issue. 14 Mixed questions of fact and law issues may implicate predominantly factual subordinate questions that are reviewed under the substantial evidence test even though the ultimate question may be reviewed by the independent judgment test. Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888-889.
18 SCAQMD submits that an EIR's sufficiency as an informational document is ultimately a legal question that courts should determine using their independent judgment. This Court's language in Laurel Heights I supports this position. As this Court explained: "The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document." (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 392-393) (emphasis added.) As described above, the Court in Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 431, also used its independent judgment to determine what level of analysis CEQA requires for water supply impacts. The Court did not defer to the lead agency's opinion regarding the law's requirements; rather, it determined for itself what level of analysis was necessary to meet "[t]he law's informational demands." (Id. at p. 432.) Further, existing case law also holds that where an agency fails to comply with CEQA's information disclosure requirements, the agency has "failed to proceed in the manner required by law." (Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118.)
However, whether an EIR satisfies CEQA's requirements depends in part on whether it was reasonably feasible for an agency to conduct additional or more thorough analysis. EIRs must contain "a detailed statement" of a project's impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21061 ), and an agency must "use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." (CEQA Guidelines § 15144.) Nevertheless, "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible." (CEQA Guidelines § 15151.)
SCAQMD submits that the question of whether additional analysis or a particular study suggested by a commenter is "feasible" is generally a question of fact. Courts have already held that whether a particular alternative is "feasible" is reviewed by the substantial evidence test. 19 (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-99; Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866, 883.) Thus, if a lead agency determines that a particular study or analysis is infeasible, that decision should generally be judged by the substantial evidence standard. However, SCAQMD urges this Court to hold that lead agencies must explain the basis of any determination that a particular analysis is infeasible in the EIR itself. An EIR must discuss information, including issues related to the feasibility of particular analyses "in sufficient detail to enable meaningful participation and criticism by the public. '[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report."' (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 405 (quoting Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange ( 1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818,831) (discussing analysis of alternatives).) The evidence on which the determination is based should also be summarized in the EIR itself, with appropriate citations to reference materials if necessary.

Otherwise commenting agencies such as SCAQMD would be forced to guess where the lead agency's evidence might be located, thus thwarting effective public participation.

Moreover, if a lead agency determines that a particular study or analysis would not result in reliable or useful information and for that reason is not feasible, that determination should be judged by the substantial evidence test. (See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, supra, 57 Cal.4th 439,448,457:
20 whether "existing conditions" baseline would be misleading or uninformative judged by substantial evidence standard.15) If the lead agency's determination that a particular analysis or study is not feasible is supported by substantial evidence, then the agency has not violated CEQA's information disclosure provisions, since it would be infeasible to provide additional information. This Court's decisions provide precedent for such a result. For example, this Court determined that the issue of whether the EIR should have included a more detailed discussion of future herbicide use was resolved because substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that "the precise parameters of future herbicide use could not be predicted." Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v.

California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 955.

Of course, SCAQMD expects that courts will continue to hold lead agencies to their obligations to consult with, and not to ignore or misrepresent, the views of sister agencies having special expertise in the area of air quality. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners (2007) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1364 n.11.) In some cases, information provided by such expert agencies may establish that the purported evidence relied on by the lead agency is not in fact "substantial". (Id. at pp. 1369-1371.)
In sum, courts retain ultimate responsibility to determine what CEQA requires. However, the law does not require exhaustive analysis, but only what is reasonably feasible. Agencies deserve deference for their factual determinations regarding what type of analysis is reasonably feasible. On the other hand, if a commenter requests more information, and the lead agency declines to provide it but does not determine that the 15 The substantial evidence standard recognizes that the courts "have neither the resources nor the scientific expertise" to weigh conflicting evidence on technical issues. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.) 21 requested study or analysis would be infeasible, misleading or uninformative, the question becomes whether the omission of that analysis renders the EIR inadequate to satisfy CEQA's informational purposes. (Id. at pp. 13 70-71.) Again, this is predominantly a question oflaw and should be judged by the de novo or independent judgment standard of review. Of course, this Court has recognized that a "project opponent or reviewing court can always imagine some additional study or analysis that might provide helpful information. It is not for them to design the EIR. That further study ... might be helpful does not make it necessary." (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376,415 - see also CEQA Guidelines § l 5204(a) [CEQA "does not require a lead agency to conduct every test. .. recommended or demanded by commenters."].) Courts, then, must adjudicate whether an omission of particular information renders an EIR inadequate to serve CEQA's informational purposes.16
16 We recognize that there is case law stating that the substantial evidence standard applies to "challenges to the scope of an EIR's analysis of a topic" as well as the methodology used and the accuracy of the data relied on in the document "because these types of challenges involve factual questions." (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198, and cases relied on therein.) However, we interpret this language to refer to situations where the question of the scope of the analysis really is factual-that is, where it involves whether further analysis is feasible, as discussed above. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Bakersfield court expressly rejected an argument that a claimed "omission of information from the EIR should be treated as inquiries whether there is substantial evidence supporting the decision approving the project." Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208.

And the Bakersfield court ultimately decided that the lead agency must analyze the connection between the identified air pollution impacts and resulting health impacts, even though the EIR already included some discussion of air-pollution-related respiratory illnesses. Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1220. Therefore, the court must not have interpreted this question as one of the "scope of the analysis" to be judged by the substantial evidence standard.
22 B. Friant Ranch's Rationale for Rejecting the Independent Judgment Standard of Review is Unsupported by Case
Law.

In its brief, Friant Ranch makes a distinction between cases where a required CEQA topic is not discussed at all (to be reviewed by independent judgment as a failure to proceed in the manner required by law) and cases where a topic is discussed, but the commenter claims the information provided is insufficient (to be judged by the substantial evidence test). (Opening Brief, pp. 13-17 .) The Court of Appeal recognized these two types of cases, but concluded that both raised questions of law. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 704 (superseded by grant of review) 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 290.) We believe the distinction drawn by Friant Ranch is unduly narrow, and inconsistent with cases which have concluded that CEQA documents are insufficient. In many instances, CEQA's requirements are stated broadly, and the courts must interpret the law to determine what level of analysis satisfies CEQA's mandate for providing meaningful information, even though the EIR discusses the issue to some extent.

For example, the CEQA Guidelines require discussion of the existing environmental baseline. In County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 954-955, the lead agency had discussed the environmental baseline by describing historic month-end water levels in the affected lakes. However, the court held that this was not an adequate baseline discussion because it failed to discuss the timing and amounts of past actual water releases, to allow comparison with the proposed project. The court evidently applied the independent judgment test to its decision, even though the agency discussed the issue to some extent.
23 Likewise, in Vineyard Area Citizens (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, this Court addressed the question of whether an EIR's analysis of water supply impacts complied with CEQA. The parties agreed that the EIR was required to analyze the effects of providing water to the development project, "and that in order to do so the EIR had, in some manner, to identify the planned sources of that water." (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, at p. 428.) However, the parties disagreed as to the level of detail required for this analysis and "what level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies can be tolerated in an EIR .... " (Id.) In other words, the EIR had analyzed water supply impacts for the project, but the petitioner claimed that the analysis was insufficient.

This Court noted that neither CEQA's statutory language or the CEQA Guidelines specifically addressed the question of how precisely an EIR must discuss water supply impacts. (Id.) However, it explained that CEQA "states that ' [ w ]hile foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can."' (Id., [Guidelines § 15144].) The Court used this general principle, along with prior precedent, to elucidate four "principles for analytical adequacy" that are necessary in order to satisfy "CEQA's informational purposes." (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, at p. 430.) The Court did not defer to the agency's determination that the EIR's analysis of water supply impacts was sufficient. Rather, this Court used its independent judgment to determine for itself the level of analysis required to satisfy CEQA's fundamental purposes. (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, at p. 441: an EIR does not serve its purposes where it neglects to explain likely sources of water and "... leaves long term water supply considerations to later stages of the project.")
24 Similarly, the CEQA Guidelines require an analysis of noise impacts of the project. (Appendix G, "Environmental Checklist Form." 17) In Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1123, the court held that the lead agency's noise impact analysis was inadequate even though it had addressed the issue and concluded that the increase would not be noticeable. If the court had been using the substantial evidence standard, it likely would have upheld this discussion.

Therefore, we do not agree that the issue can be resolved on the basis suggested by Friant Ranch, which would apply the substantial evidence standard to every challenge to an analysis that addresses a required CEQA topic. This interpretation would subvert the courts' proper role in interpreting CEQA and determining what the law requires.

Nor do we agree that the Court of Appeal in this case violated CEQA's prohibition on courts interpreting its provisions "in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated in this division or in the state guidelines." (Pub. Resources Code § 21083 .1.) CEQA requires an EIR to describe all significant impacts of the project on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 211 00(b )(2); Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, at p. 428.) Human beings are part of the environment, so CEQA requires EIRs to discuss a project's significant impacts on human health. However, except in certain particular circumstances, 18 neither the CEQA statute nor Guidelines specify the precise level of analysis that agencies must undertake to satisfy the law's requirements. (see, e.g., CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.2(a) [EIRs must describe "health and safety problems caused by {a project's} physical changes"].) Accordingly, courts must interpret CEQA as a whole to 17 Association of Environmental Professionals, 2015 CEQA Statute and Guidelines (2015) p.287.
18 E.g., Pub. Resources Code § 21 l 51.8(C)(3)(B)(iii) (requiring specific type of health risk analysis for siting schools).
25 determine whether a particular EIR is sufficient as an informational document. A court determining whether an EIR's discussion of human health impacts is legally sufficient does not constitute imposing a new substantive requirement. 19 Under Friant Ranch's theory, the above referenced cases holding a CEQA analysis inadequate would have violated the law. This is not a reasonable interpretation.

IV. COURTS MUST SCRUPULOUSLY ENFORCE THE

REQUIREMENTS THAT LEAD AGENCIES CONSULT

WITH AND OBTAIN COMMENTS FROM AIR DISTRICTS
Courts must "scrupulously enforce" CEQA's legislatively mandated requirements. (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) Case law has firmly established that lead agencies must consult with the relevant air pollution control district before conducting an initial study, and must provide the districts with notice of the intention to adopt a negative declaration (or EIR). (Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 958.) As Schenck held, neither publishing the notice nor providing it to the State Clearinghouse was a sufficient substitute for sending notice directly to the air district. (Id.) Rather, courts "must be satisfied that [administrative] agencies have fully complied with the procedural requirements of CEQA, since only in this way can the important public purposes ofCEQA be protected from subversion." Schenck, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 959 (citations omitted).20
19 We submit that Public Resources Code Section 21083.1 was intended to prevent courts from, for example, holding that an agency must analyze economic impacts of a project where there are no resulting environmental impacts (see CEQA Guidelines § 15131) , or imposing new procedural requirements, such as imposing additional public notice requirements not set forth in CEQA or the Guidelines.
20 Lead agencies must consult air districts, as public agencies with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project, before releasing an EIR. (Pub. Resources Code§§ 21104(a); 21153.) Moreover, air 26 Lead agencies should be aware, therefore, that failure to properly seek and consider input from the relevant air district constitutes legal error which may jeopardize their project approvals. For example, the court in Fall River Wild Trout Foundation v. County of Shasta, (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 482, 492 held that the failure to give notice to a trustee agency (Department of Fish and Game) was prejudicial error requiring reversal. The court explained that the lack of notice prevented the Department from providing any response to the CEQA document. (Id. at p. 492.) It therefore prevented relevant information from being presented to the lead agency, which was prejudicial error because it precluded informed decision-making. (Id.)21
districts should be considered "state agencies" for purposes of the requirement to consult with "trustee agencies" as set forth in Public Resources Code§ 20180.3(a). This Court has long ago held that the districts are not mere "local agencies" whose regulations are superseded by those of a state agency regarding matters of statewide concern, but rather have concurrent jurisdiction over such issues. ( Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Util. Com. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 945, 951, 954.) Since air pollution is a matter of statewide concern, Id at 952, air districts should be entitled to trustee agency status in order to ensure that this vital concern is adequately protected during the CEQA process. 21 In Schenck, the court concluded that failure to give notice to the air district was not prejudicial, but this was partly because the trial court had already corrected the error before the case arrived at the Court of Appeal.

The trial court issued a writ of mandate requiring the lead agency to give notice to the air district. The air district responded by concurring with the lead agency that air impacts were not significant. (Schenck, 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960.) We disagree with the Schenck court that the failure to give notice to the air district would not have been prejudicial (even in the absence of the trial court writ) merely because the lead agency purported to follow the air district's published CEQA guidelines for significance. (Id., 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 960.) In the first place, absent notice to the air district, it is uncertain whether the lead agency properly followed those guidelines. Moreover, it is not realistic to expect that an air district's published guidelines would necessarily fully address all possible air-quality related issues that can arise with a CEQA project, or that those 27 Similarly, lead agencies must obtain additional information requested by expert agencies, including those with jurisdiction by law, if that information is necessary to determine a project's impacts. (Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236-37.) Approving a project without obtaining that information constitutes a failure to proceed in the manner prescribed by CEQA. (Id. at p. 1236.)
Moreover, a lead agency can save significant time and money by consulting with the air district early in the process. For example, the lead agency can learn what the air district recommends as an appropriate analysis on the facts of its case, including what kinds of health impacts analysis may be available, and what models are appropriate for use. This saves the lead agency from the need to do its analysis all over again and possibly needing to recirculate the document after errors are corrected, if new significant impacts are identified. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15088.S(a).) At the same time, the air district's expert input can help the lead agency properly determine whether another commenter's request for additional analysis or studies is reasonable or feasible. Finally, the air district can provide input on what mitigation measures would be feasible and effective.

Therefore, we suggest that this Court provide guidance to lead agencies reminding them of the importance of consulting with the relevant air districts regarding these issues. Otherwise, their feasibility decisions may be vulnerable to air district evidence that establishes that there is no substantial evidence to support the lead agency decision not to provide specific analysis. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1369-1371.)
guidelines would necessarily be continually modified to reflect new developments. Therefore we believe that, had the trial court not already ordered the lead agency to obtain the air district's views, the failure to give notice would have been prejudicial, as in Fall River, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th 482,492.
28 CONCLUSION
The SCAQMD respectfully requests this Court not to establish a hard-and-fast rule concerning whether CEQA requires a lead agency to correlate identified air quality impacts of a project with resulting health outcomes. Moreover, the question of whether an EIR is "sufficient as an informational document" is a mixed question of fact and law containing two levels of inquiry. Whether a particular proposed analysis is feasible is predominantly a question of fact to be judged by the substantial evidence standard of review. Where the requested analysis is feasible, but the lead agency relies on legal or policy reasons not to provide it, the question of whether the EIR is nevertheless sufficient as an informational document is predominantly a question of law to be judged by the independent judgment standard of review.

DATED: April 3, 2015
Respectfully submitted,

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
KURT R. WIESE, GENERAL COUNSEL

BARBARA BAIRD, CHIEF DEPUTY COUNSEL
By: ~ ~
Barbara Baird
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIST/CT
29 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
Pursuant to Rule 8.520( c )(1) of the California Rules of Court, I hereby certify that this brief contains 8,476 words, including footnotes, but excluding the Application, Table of Contents, Table of Authorities, Certificate of Service, this Certificate of Word Count, and signature blocks.

I have relied on the word count of the Microsoft Word Vista program used to prepare this Certificate.

DATED: April 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
~~
Barbara Baird
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.

On April 3, 2015 I served true copies of the following document(s) described as APPLICATION OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR

QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR LEA VE TO FILE

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
AND {PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE by placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached service list as follows:

BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this District's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Diamond Bar, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

POS-1

SERVICE LIST
James G. Moose, Tiffany K. Wright,
Laura M. Harris

REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Bryan N. Wagner

WAGNER & WAGNER
7110 N. Fresno St, Suite 340
Fresno, CA 93 720
Sara Hedgpeth-Harris

LAW OFFICE OF SARA

HEDGPETH-HARRIS
5445 E. Lane Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
Daniel C. Cederborg
Bruce B. Johnson, Jr.

Zachary Stephen Redmond

OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY

COUNSEL
2220 Tulare Street, Suite 500
Fresno, CA 93 721
Clerk of the Court
California Court of Appeal
Fifth Appellate District
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(via U.S. Mail & Electronic Transmission)
Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
1130 0 Street
Fresno, CA 93 721
POS-2
Attorneys for Real Party in
Interest and Respondent Friant
Ranch, L.P.

Attorney for Real Party in Interest
and Respondent Friant Ranch,
L.P.

Attorney for Plaintiffs and
Appellants Sierra Club, et al
Attorneys for Respondents
County of Fresno
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis 14397-05 AQ Report

This page intentionally left blank

Moreno Valley Business Park –
Phase II

MOBILE SOURCE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]

Michael Tirohn
[email protected]

J
ANUARY 17, 2022

14397-04 HRA Report

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 6 2 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Background on Recommended Methodology ............................................................................ 10

2.2 Construction Health Risk Assessment ......................................................................................... 10

2.3 Operational Health Risk Assessment .......................................................................................... 13

2.3 Exposure Quantification.............................................................................................................. 18

2.4 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk ......................................................................................................... 20

2.5 Non-carcinogenic Exposures ....................................................................................................... 21

2.6 Potential Project-Related DPM Source Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks ....................................... 22 3 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 26 4 CERTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 28

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2.1: CALEEMOD OUTPUTS
APPENDIX 2.2: EMFAC EMISSIONS SUMMARY
APPENDIX 2.3: AERMOD MODEL INPUT/OUTPUT
APPENDIX 2.4: RISK CALCULATIONS

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
ii

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 7 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 8 EXHIBIT 2-A: MODELED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION SOURCES ............................................................ 12 EXHIBIT 2-B: MODELED ON-SITE EMISSION SOURCES ......................................................................... 15 EXHIBIT 2-C: MODELED OFF-SITE EMISSION SOURCES ........................................................................ 16 EXHIBIT 2-D: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS .................................................................................................. 24

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS ................................... 3 TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS ...................................... 3 TABLE ES-3: SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS .... 4 TABLE 2-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION .............................................................................................. 11 TABLE 2-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................... 11 TABLE 2-3: 2023 WEIGHTED AVERAGE DPM EMISSIONS FACTORS ..................................................... 14 TABLE 2-4: DPM EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT TRUCKS (2023 ANALYSIS YEAR) ..................................... 17 TABLE 2-5: AERMOD MODEL PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ 18 TABLE 2-6: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY) ..... 19 TABLE 2-7: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (30 YEAR RESIDENTIAL) ........... 19 TABLE 2-8: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (25 YEAR WORKER) ................. 20

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
µg Microgram
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model
APS Auxiliary Power System
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ARB Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPF Cancer Potency Factor
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HHD Heavy Heavy-Duty
HI Hazard Index
HRA Health Risk Assessment
LHD Light Heavy-Duty
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MEIR Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor
MEIW Maximally Exposed Individual Worker
MHD Medium Heavy-Duty
NAD North American Datum
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less
Project Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II
REL Reference Exposure Level
RM Recommended Measures
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SRA Source Receptor Area
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TA Traffic Analysis
URF Unit Risk Factor
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report

This page intentionally left blank

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report evaluat es the potential health risk impacts associated with the development of the proposed Project . More specifically, health risk impacts as a result of exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) including diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of Project construction activities, and heavy -duty diesel trucks accessing the site . This section summarizes the significance criteria and Project health risks.

The results of the health risk assessment from Project-generated DPM emissions are provided in Table ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 below for the Project.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions is Location “R4” which is located approximately 103 feet west of the Project site at an existing residence located at 12085 Heacock Street . Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction DPM source emissions is estimated at 6.04 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.02, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D.

PERATIONAL IMPACTS
Residential Exposure Scenario:

The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is Location R 4 which is located approximately 103 feet west of the Project site at an existing residence located at 12085 Heacock Street. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at

0.79 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million.

At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled residential receptors are exposed to lesser concentrations and are located at a greater distance from the Project site and primary truck route than the MEIR analyzed herein, and TACs generally dissipates with distance from the source, all other residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project site would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
2 Worker Exposure Scenario1:

The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is Location “R6,” which represents the adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 5 feet east of the Project site. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.36 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be < 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyze herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D.

School Child Exposure Scenario:

There are no existing schools, and no schools are proposed, within one -quarter mile of the Project site. The school nearest the Project site is Midland Elementary School, which is located

0.5 miles north of the site. Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Moreover, as substantiated in this analysis, at the MEIR evaluated herein (located on ly 103 feet from the Project site) health risk thresholds would not be exceed or even approached.

In this latter regard, proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic- related studies, the additional non- cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70-percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80 -percent drop- off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center (1).

The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources.

The one-quarter mile radius or 1,320 feet geographic scope utilized for determining potential impacts to nearby schools is more robust than, and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the CARB 1,000-foot impact radius identified above.

1 SCAQMD guidance does not require assessment of the potential health risk to on-site workers. Excerpts from the document OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines —The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Healt h Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003), also indicate that it is not necessary to examine the health effects to on -site workers unless required by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) / CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) or the worker resides on-site.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
3 TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS Time Period Location
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
2 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 6.04 10 NO
Time Period Location
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 0.02 1.0 NO
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS Time Period Location
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 0.79 10 NO
25 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor 0.36 10 NO
Time Period Location
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
4 TABLE ES-3: SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS Time Period Location
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 6.39 10 NO
Time Period Location
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 0.02 1.0 NO
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
5 1 INTRODUCTION
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) typically issues a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation of a CEQA Document. Per the SCAQMD’s typical comment letter, if a proposed Project is expected to generate/attract diesel trucks, which emit diesel particulate matter (DPM) or other Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) , preparation of a HRA is necessary. This document serves to meet the SCAQMD’s request for preparation of a HRA. This HRA has been prepared in accordance with the document Health R isk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (2) and is comprised of all relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California EPA and SCAQMD. Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of ten ( 10) persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to TAC exposure from a project such as the proposed Project. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulatively considerable impact.

The AQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (3). In this report the AQMD states (Page D-3):
“…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that th e HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” The SCAQMD has also established non- carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Non - carcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. In this HRA, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less -than-significant. Both the cancer risk and non- carcinogenic risk thresholds are applied to the nearest sensitive receptors below.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
6 1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed project is located north of State Route 60 (SR -60) at Heacock Street in the northwestern portion of the City of Moreno Valley , in western Riverside County. The Project considered herein comprises approximately 9.98 acres within Specific Plan No. 205, located immediately southeast of Ironwood Avenue at Heacock Street, as shown on Exhibit 1-A.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is proposed to consist of a single 220,390 sf industrial building (Building 5) which will be evaluated assuming 154,270 sf of warehousing use (70% of the overall sf), 33,060 sf of manufacturing use (15% of the overall sf), and 33,060 sf of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (15% of the overall sf) for a total of 220,390 sf of industrial uses. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-B.

As summarized in the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Trip Generation and VMT Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., the Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 498 vehicular trips-ends per day (actual vehicles) which includes 128 two-way truck trips per day (4). Note: Actual vehicle counts (rather than passenger car equivalent [PCE]) is employed in this analysis to accurately reflect emissions attributable to the quantity and category of each vehicle accessing the Project site.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
7 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
8 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
9 This page intentionally left blank

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
10 2 BACKGROUND

2.1 BACKGROUND ON RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY
This HRA is based on SCAQMD guidelines to produce conservative estimates of human health risk posed by exposure to DPM. The conservative nature of this analysis is due primarily to the following factors:
• The ARB-adopted diesel exhaust Unit Risk Factor (URF) of 300 in one million per µg/m3 is based upon the upper 95 percentile of estimated risk for each of the epidemiological studies utilized to develop the URF. Using the 95th percentile URF represents a very conservative (health-protective) risk posed by DPM because it represents breathing rates that are high for the human body (95% higher than the average population).
• The emissions derived assume that every truck accessing the P roject site will idle for 15 minutes under the unmitigated scenario , and this is an overestimation of actual idling times and thus conservative.2 The California Air Resources Board (CARB’s) anti -idling requirements impose a 5 - minute maximum idling time and therefore the analysis conservatively overestimates DPM emissions from idling by a factor of 3.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

2.2.1 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
The emissions calculations for the construction HRA component are based on an assumed mix of construction equipment and hauling activity as presented in the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis (“technical study”) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (5) Construction related DPM emissions are expected to occur primarily as a function of heavy-duty construction equipment that would be operating on-site.

As discussed in the technical study, the Project would result in approximately 320 total working- days for construction activity. The construction duration by activity is shown on Table 2 -1. A detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by activity is provided at Table 2 -2.

The CalEEMod emissions outputs are presented in Appendix 2.1. The modeled emission sources for construction activity are illustrated on Exhibit 2-A.

2 Although the Project is required to comply with ARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, staff at SCAQMD recommends that the on-site idling emissions should be estimated for 15 minutes of truck idling (personal communication, in person, with Jillian Wong, Decem ber 22, 2016), which would take into account on-site idling which occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check -in and check-out, etc.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
11 TABLE 2-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 08/01/2022 08/12/2022 10
Grading 08/13/2022 09/09/2022 20
Building Construction 09/10/2022 07/28/2023 230
Paving 07/03/2023 07/28/2023 20
Architectural Coating 06/05/2023 07/28/2023 40
TABLE 2-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Activity Equipment1 Amount Hours Per Day
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
12 EXHIBIT 2-A: MODELED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION SOURCES

Construction Activity
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
13 2.3 OPERATIONAL HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

2.3.1 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE TRUCK ACTIVITY
Vehicle DPM emissions were calculated using emission factors for particulate matter less than 10µm in diameter (PM10) generated with the 2017 version of the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) developed by the CARB. EMFAC 2017 is a mathematical model that CARB developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the ARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources (6). The most recent version of this model, EMFAC 2017, incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day.

Several distinct emission processes are included in EMFAC 2017. Emission factors calculated using EMFAC 2017 are expressed in units of grams per vehicle miles traveled (g/VMT) or grams per idle -hour (g/idle -hr), depending on the emission process. The emiss ion processes and corresponding emission factor units associated with diesel particulate exhaust for this Project are presented below.

For this Project, annual average PM
10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC 2017 in EMFAC Mode for vehicles in the Riverside County jurisdiction. The EMFAC Mode generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per v ehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of temperature, relative humidity, and vehicle speed.

The model was run for speeds traveled in the vicinity of the Project. The vehicle travel speeds for each segment modeled are summarized below.
• Idling – on-site loading/unloading and truck gate
• 5 miles per hour – on-site vehicle movement including driving and maneuvering • 25 miles per hour – off-site vehicle movement including driving and maneuvering.

Calculated emission factors are shown at Table 2 -3. As a conservative measure, a 2023 EMFAC 2017 run was conducted and a static 2023 emissions factor data set was used for the entire duration of analysis herein (e.g., 30 years). Use of 2023 emission factors would overstate potential impacts since this approach assumes that emission factors remain “static” and do not change over time due to fleet turnover or cleaner technology with lower emissions that would be incorporated into vehicles after 2023. Additionally, based on EMFAC 2017, Light -Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 45.1% diesel, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 91.0% diesel, and Heavy -Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 92.8% diesel . Trucks fueled by diesel are accounted for by these percentages accordingly in the emissions factor generation. Appendix 2.2 includes additional details on the emissions estimates from EMFAC.

The vehicle DPM exhaust emissions were calculated for running exhaust emissions. The running exhaust emissions were calculated by applying the running exhaust PM10 emission factor (g/VMT) from EMFAC over the total distance traveled. The following equation was used to estimate off-site emissions for each of the different vehicle classes comprising the mobile sources (7):

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
14 EmissionsspeedA (g/s) = EF RunExhaust (g/VMT) * Distance (VMT/trip) * Number of Trips (trips/day) / seconds per day
Where:

EmissionsspeedA (g/s): Vehicle emissions at a given speed A; EFRunExhaust (g/VMT): EMFAC running exhaust PM10 emission factor at speed A; Distance (VMT/trip): Total distance traveled per trip.

Similar to off -site traffic, on -site vehicle running emissions were calculated by applying the running exhaust PM 10 emission factor (g/VMT) from EMFAC and the total vehicle trip number over the length of the driving path using the same formula presented above for on-site emissions.

In addition, on-site vehicle idling exhaust emissions were calculated by applying the idle exhaust PM10 emission factor (g/idle-hr) from EMFAC and the total truck trip over the total assumed idle time (15 minutes). The following equation was used to estimate the on- site vehicle idling emissions for each of the different vehicle classes (7):

Emissionsidle (g/s) = EFidle (g/hr) * Number of Trips (trips/day) * Idling Time (min/trip) * 60 minutes per hour / seconds per day
Where:

Emissionsidle (g/s): Vehicle emissions during idling;
EFidle(g/s): EMFAC idle exhaust PM10 emission factor.

TABLE 2-3: 2023 WEIGHTED AVERAGE DPM EMISSIONS FACTORS Speed Weighted Average
0 (idling) 0.10339 (g/idle-hr)
5 0.01648 (g/s)
25 0.00738 (g/s)
Each roadway was modeled as a line source (made up of multiple adjacent volume sources). Due to the large number of volume sources modeled for this analysis, the corresponding coordinates of each volume source have not been included in this report but are included in Appendix 2 .3.

The DPM emission rate for each volume source was calculated by multiplying the emission factor (based on the average travel speed along the roadway) by the number of trips and the distance traveled along each roadway segment and dividing the result by the number of volume sources along that roadway, as illustrated on Table 2-4. The modeled emission sources are illustrated on Exhibit 2-B for on-site sources and Exhibit 2-C for off-site sources. The modeling domain is limited to the Project’s primary truck route and includes off-site sources in the study area for more than ¾ mile. This modeling domain is more inclusive and conservative than using only a ¼ mile modeling domain which is the distance supported by several reputable studies which conclude that the greatest potential risks occur within a ¼ mile of the primary source of emissions (1) (in the case of the Project, the primary source of emissions is the on-site idling and on-site travel).

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
15 EXHIBIT 2-B: MODELED ON-SITE EMISSION SOURCES

On-Site Truck Travel
On-Site Truck Idling

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
16 EXHIBIT 2-C: MODELED OFF-SITE EMISSION SOURCES
Off-Site Truck Travel

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
17 TABLE 2-4: DPM EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT TRUCKS (2023 ANALYSIS YEAR)

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
18 On-site truck idling was estimated to occur as trucks enter and travel through the Project site.

Although the Project’s diesel-fueled truck and equipment operators will be required by State law to comply with CARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, staff at SCAQMD recommends that the on- site idling emissions be calculated assuming 15 minutes of truck idling (8), which would take into account on-site idling which occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check- in and check-out, etc. As such, this analysis calculates truck idling at 15 minutes, consistent with SCAQMD’s recommendation.

As summarized in the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., the Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 498 vehicular trips-ends per day (actual vehicles) which includes 128 two-way truck trips per day (4).

2.3 EXPOSURE QUANTIFICATION
The analysis herein has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines in the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (2). SCAQMD recommends using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) AERMOD model. For purposes of this analysis, the Lakes AERMOD View (Version 10.2.1) was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site operations. Lakes AERMOD View was utilized to incorporate the U.S. EPA’s latest AERMOD Version 21112 (9).

The model offers additional flexibility by allowing the user to assign an initial release height and vertical dispersion parameters for mobile sources representative of a roadway. For this HRA, the roadways were modeled as adjacent volume sources. Roadways were modeled using the U.S.

EPA’s haul route methodology for modeling of on- site and off- site truck movement. More specifically, the Haul Road Volume Source Calculator in Lakes AERMOD View has been utilized to determine the release height parameters. Based on the US EPA methodology, the Project’s modeled sources would result in a release height of 3.49 meters, and an initial lateral dimension of 4.0 meters, and an initial vertical dimension of 3.25 meters.

SCAQMD-recommended model parameters are presented in Table 2-5 (10). The model requires additional input parameters including emission data and local meteorology. Meteorological data from the SCAQMD’s Perris monitoring station (SRA 24) was used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds (11).

TABLE 2-5: AERMOD MODEL PARAMETERS
Dispersion Coefficient (Urban/Rural) Urban (Population 2,189,641) Terrain (Flat/Elevated) Elevated (Regulatory Default)
Averaging Time 1 year (5-year Meteorological Data Set)
Receptor Height 0 meters (Regulatory Default)
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 were used to locate the Project site boundaries, each volume source location, and receptor locations in the P roject site’s vicinity. The AERMOD dispersion model summary output files for the Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
19 proposed Project are presented in Appendix 2.3. Modeled sensitive receptors were placed at residential and non-residential locations.

Receptors may be placed at applicable structure locations for residential and worker property and not necessarily the boundaries of the properties containing these uses because the human receptors (residents and workers) spend a majority of their time at the residence or in the workplace’s building, and not on the property line . It should be noted that the primary purpose of receptor placement is focused on long -term exposure. For example, the HRA evaluates the potential health risks to residents and worker s over a period of 30 or 25 years of exposure , respectively. Notwithstanding, as a conservative measure, receptors were placed at either the outdoor living area or the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site.

For purposes of this HRA, receptors include both residential and non- residential (worker) land uses in the vicinity of the Project. These receptors are included in the HRA since residents and workers may be exposed at these locations over a long -term duration of 30 and 25 years , respectively. This methodology is consistent with SCAQMD and OEHHA recommended guidance.

Any impacts to residents or workers located further away from the Project site than the modeled residential and workers would have a lesser impact than what has already been disclosed in the HRA at the MEIR and MEIW because concentrations dissipate with distance.

Consistent with SCAQMD modeling guidance, all receptors were set to existing elevation height so that only ground- level concentrations are analyzed (12). United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) terrain data based on a 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map series using AERMAP was utilized in the HRA modeling to set elevations.

Discrete variants for daily breathing rates, exposure frequency, and exposure duration were obtained from relevant distribution profiles presented in the 2015 OEHHA Guidelines. Tables 2 - 6 through 2-7 summarize the Exposure Parameters for Residents and Workers based on 2015 OEHHA Guidelines. Appendix 2.4 includes the detailed risk calculation.

TABLE 2-6: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY) Age Daily
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
Age
Specific
Factor
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction
of Time
at Home
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
0 to 2 1,090 10 2 0.85 345 8
TABLE 2-7: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (30 YEAR RESIDENTIAL) Age Daily
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
Age
Specific
Factor
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction
of Time
at Home
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
-0.25 to 0 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
0 to 2 1,090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
20 2 to 16 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
16 to 30 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
TABLE 2-8: EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK (25 YEAR WORKER) Age Daily
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
Age
Specific
Factor
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
16 to 41 230 1 25 250 12

2.4 CARCINOGENIC CHEMICAL RISK
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if a HRA shows an increased risk of greater than 10 in one million. Based on guidance from the SCAQMD in the document Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (2), for purposes of this analysis, 10 in one million is used as the cancer risk threshold for the proposed Project.

Excess cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 people, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time.

Guidance from CARB and the California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommends a refinement to the standard point estimate approach when alternate human body weights and breathing rates are utilized to assess risk for susc eptible subpopulations such as children. For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose.

Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the canc er 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, the following dose algorithm was utilized.

DOSEair = (Cair × [BR/BW] × A × EF) x (1 x 10 -6)
Where:

DOSEair = chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day)
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (ug/m3)
[BR/BW] = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg BW-day)
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
21 A = inhalation absorption factor
EF = exposure frequency (days/365 days)
BW = body weight (kg)
1 x 10 -6 = conversion factors (ug to mg, L to m3)
RISKair = DOSEair x CPF x ED/AT
Where:

DOSEair = chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day)
CPF = cancer potency factor
ED = number of years within particular age group
AT = averaging time

2.5 NON-CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURES
An evaluation of the potential noncarcinogenic effects of chronic exposures was also conducted.

Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing a compound’s annual concentration with its toxicity factor or Reference Exposure Level (REL). The REL for di esel particulates was obtained from OEHHA for this analysis. The chronic reference exposure level (REL) for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5 μg/m 3 (OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database, http://www.oehha.org/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp).

The non-cancer hazard index was calculated (consistent with SCAQMD methodology) as follows:

The relationship for the non-cancer health effects of DPM is given by the following equation:

HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM
Where:

HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.

CDPM = Annual average DPM concentration (μg/m3).

RELDPM = Reference exposure level (REL) for DPM; the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.

For purposes of this analysis the hazard index for the respiratory endpoint totaled less than one for all receptors in the project vicinity, and thus is less than significant.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
22 2.6 POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED DPM SOURCE CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions is Location R4 which is located approximately 103 feet west of the Project site at an existing residence located at 12085 Heacock Street . Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction -source DPM emissions is estimated at 6.04 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.02, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D.

PERATIONAL IMPACTS
Residential Exposure Scenario:

The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R4 which is located approximately 103 feet west of the Project site at an existing residence located at 12085 Heacock Street . Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.79 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million.

Worker Exposure Scenario3:

The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 5 feet east of the Project site. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.36 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

3 SCAQMD guidance does not require assessment of the potential health risk to on-site workers. Excerpts from the document OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines —The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Healt h Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003), also indicate that it is not necessary to examine the health effects to on -site workers unless required by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) / CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) or the worker resides on-site.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
23 Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be < 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyze herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human healt h or cancer risk to adjacent workers. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D.

School Child Exposure Scenario:

There are no existing schools, and no schools are proposed, within one -quarter mile of the Project site. The school nearest the Project site is Midland Elementary School, which is located

0.5 miles north of the site. Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Moreover, as substantiated in this analysis, at the MEIR evaluated herein (located only 103 feet from the Project site) health risk thresholds would not be exceed or even approached.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
24 EXHIBIT 2-D: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
25 This page intentionally left blank

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
26 3 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2005.

2. South Coast Air Quality Managment District. Mobile Source Toxics Analysis. [Online] 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mobile_toxic/mobile_toxic.html.

3. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. [Cited: June 6, 2019.] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative- impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

4. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II Trip Generation and VMT Analysis . 2021.

5. —. Moreno Valley Business Park Phase II Air Quality Impact Analysis. 2021.

6. California Air Resources Board. EMFAC 2017. [Online] https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/.

7. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm.

8. Wong, Jillian. Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources. December 22, 2016.

9. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). [Online] 2019. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf.

10. —. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). [Online] April 2018. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf.

11. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Data for AERMOD. [Online] [Cited: December 16, 2021.] https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air -quality/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/data- for-aermod.

12. —. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. [Online] [Cited: September 18, 2019.] http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance.

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
27 This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
28 4 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this health risk assessment represent an accurate depiction of the impacts to sensitive receptors associated with the proposed Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Project.

The information contained in this health risk assessment report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 660-1994.

Haseeb Qureshi
Associate Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(949) 660-1994
[email protected]

ROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
AEP – Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials

ROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Environmental Site Assessment – American Society for Testing and Materials • June 2013 Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – California Air Resources Board • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June 2006

Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
This page intentionally left blank
Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 14397-05 HRA Report
APPENDIX 2.1:

CALEEMOD OUTPUTS

Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II (Construction - Unmitigated) Riverside-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area is 9.98 acres
Construction Phase - Construction anticipated to begin August 2022 and end in July 2023 Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Manufacturing

33.06 1000sqft

0.76 33,060.00
0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

33.06 1000sqft

0.76 33,060.00
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
154.27
1000sqft

3.54 154,270.00
0 Other Asphalt Surfaces
173.37
1000sqft

3.98 173,366.00
0 Parking Lot
134.00
Space

0.94 41,076.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.4 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2023
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 12/14/2021 1:51 PM

Page 1 of 28 ends

Moreno Valley City CouncilOctober 7, 2025

Moreno Valley City Council
October 7, 2025