Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023

concluded that air pollutant impacts would be significant even with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures (MM AQ 3-1 through 3-3).

A detailed air quality assessment (AQ Study) of the proposed project was conducted by Urban Crossroads in February 2022, to identify project-specific air pollutant impacts and recommend additional mitigation if necessary (i.e., other than those applicable measures already identified in TOP EIR). The AQ Study (Appendix A) determined the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality because the project is consistent with the existing Industrial designation in the CCC SP.

Construction. Table 7 shows the air pollutants estimated in the AQ Study for construction of the proposed project. Table 7 shows that the proposed project’s construction-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation beyond that identified in TOP EIR would be required.

Table 7: Project Regional Construction Emissions
Pollutant Characteristics
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.40 84.48 189.09 0.64 56.07 16.50 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 2, Urban Crossroads, Feb 2022
Operation. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 8 which indicates Project emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC and NOx. However, the VOC and NOx exceedances that would occur as a result of the proposed project have already been estimated and considered in TOP EIR (see below).

Table 8: Project Regional Operation Emissions
Pollutant Characteristics
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Transportation Sources 28.65 200.90 324.75 1.47 104.22 29.84 Area Sources 100.05 23.79 22,55 0.12 1.33 1.29
Maximum Daily Emissions 128.70 224.69 337.30 1.59 105.55 31.13 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES No No No No
Source: Table 6, Urban Crossroads, Feb 2022
The project will comply with Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 outlined in TOP FEIR as recommended by the SCAQMD, resulting in project level impacts that are less than significant with mitigation though the overall impact would remain, as discussion in the TOP EIR, significant and unavoidable. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 as described in Section 3.a above, otherwise, no project specific mitigation is required.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.A of the CCC SP EIR examined potential carbon monoxide hot spots but did not evaluate impacts of any more current localized air pollutants like toxic air contaminants 3223
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

(TACs) or dust during construction because those requirements and methodologies were not in place at the time that EIR was certified (1981).

TOP EIR concluded that development and operation of new land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 proposed land use plan could generate new sources of localized criteria air pollutant and TACs in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use and is surrounded on the north, west, and south by industrial uses and on the east by the Interstate 15 Freeway. As discussed in Section 5.3 of TOP EIR, the proposed project is within a non-attainment region of the SCAB. The AQ Study included an assessment of potential health risks from the project on nearby sensitive receptors.

Sensitive Receptors. Certain land uses contain persons especially susceptible to air pollutants (children, the elderly, sick persons, etc.). These types of “sensitive” land uses include residences, day care centers, hospitals, etc. and are referred to as sensitive receptors. The AQ Study evaluated localized air quality impacts at sensitive receptors nearest the project site. All distances were 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. The selection of receptor locations was based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The locations of the eleven (11) sensitive receptor sites and distances to the various project building sites are shown in Figure 5, Sensitive Receptor Locations, and are described below (shortest distance to project building shown in parenthesis):

R1: Location R1 represents the existing residence at 3141 Inland Empire Boulevard. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the project site, receptor R4 is placed at the residential building façade (3,962 feet).

R2: Location R2 represents the Embassy Suites by Hilton Ontario Airport hotel at 3663 East Guasti Road. Receptor R2 is placed at the building façade (1,421 feet).

R3: Location R3 represents the Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall hotel. Receptor R3 is placed at the building façade (3,272 feet).

R4: Location R4 represents the Ontario Airport Car Rental facility located at Rental Car Road. Receptor R4 is placed at the building façade (195 feet).

R5: Location R5 represents the Biagi Brothers Transportation facility at 3655 East Airport Drive.

Receptor R5 is placed at the building façade (172 feet).

R6: Location R6 represents the westernmost building of the Timberland distribution center at 3950 East Airport Drive. Receptor R6 is placed at the building façade (126 feet).

R7: Location R7 represents the easternmost building of the Timberland distribution center at 3950 East Airport Drive. Receptor R7 is placed at the building façade (70 feet).

R8: Location R8 represents the Cubework coworking space building located at 1001 Doubleday Avenue.

Receptor R8 is placed at the building façade (104 feet).

R9: Location R9 represents the EaZy BrandZ store located at 4060 East Jurupa Street. Receptor R9 is placed at the building façade (73 feet).

R10: Location R10 represents the Haliburton International Foods, Inc. food products supplier facility located at 3855 East Jurupa Street. Receptor R10 is placed at the building façade (116 feet).

R11: Location R11 represents the Pacific Coast Warehouse facility located at 3601 East Jurupa Street.

Receptor R11 is placed at the building façade (85 feet).

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use to the project site where an individual could remain for 24 hours (R2) has been used to determine the worst case localized construction and operational air quality impacts for large and small particulate matter emissions (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) since their thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time. The LST analysis evaluated potential impacts from construction of each of the proposed warehouse buildings on the various sensitive receptors around the Project site, considering the location of the closest sensitive receptor to each of the building sites (see Figure 5).
3224
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Figure 5: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
3225
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for Construction. The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute to 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). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as an indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represent the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. The SCAMQD’s LST Methodology is used to determine localized construction and operational air impacts for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) because the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) so it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present adjacent to these sites and be exposed to these pollutants for periods of one to eight hours.

Table 9: LST Construction Impacts
Phase/
Building Compliance Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
1 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

7.97 317
No

3.48 3,376
No

2.99 322
No

1.22 170
No
2 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

13.71 306
No

5.99 3,376
No
514
283
No

2.10 143
No
3 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

8.54 279
No

3.73 2,224
No

3.20 322
No

1.30 170
No
4 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

3.96 279
No

1.73 2,413
No

1.48 322
No

0.61 170
No
5 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

6.57 287
No

2.87 2,601
No

2.46 322
No

1.00 170
No
6 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

6.94 283
No

3.03 2,507
No

2.60 52
No

1.06 137
No
7 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

3.27 270
No

1.43 2,193
No

1.23 322
No

0.50 170
No
8 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

8.12 279
No

3.55 2,413
No

3.04 322
No

1.24 170
No
9 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

7.30 270
No

3.19 2,193
No

2.74 322
No

1.12 170
No
Grading
1 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

8.22 317
No

5.35 3,376
No

2.14 322
No

0.75 170
No
2 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

14.14 306
No

9.20 3,376
No

3.68 283
No

1.29 143
No
3 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

8.80 271
No

5.73 2,224
No

2.29 322
No

0.80 170
No
4 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold

4.08 279

2.66 2,413

1.06 322

0.37 170
3226
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Phase/
Building Compliance Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
5 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

6.77 287
No

4.40 2,601
No

1.76 322
No

0.62 170
No
6 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

7.15 283
No

4.65 2,507
No

1.86 52
No

0.65 137
No
7 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

3.37 270
No

2.19 2,193
No

0.88 322
No

0.31 170
No
8 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

8.37 279
No

5.45 2,413
No

2.18 322
No

0.76 170
No
9 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

7.52 270
No

4.89 2,193
No

1.95 322No

0.68 170
No
Source: Table 5, Urban Crossroads, February 2022
Table 9 demonstrates that the proposed project’s construction-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation beyond that identified in TOP EIR would be required of the project (see AQ 3-1).

LSTs for Operations. Localized operational emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized on Table 10, which concludes the proposed project’s localized operational-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation beyond the required mitigation from TOP EIR would be required (see AQ-2 and AQ3).

Table 10: LST Operation Impacts
Building Compliance Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

4.06 317
No

4.60 3.376
No

0.79 78
No

0.33 41
No
2 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

6.99 306
No

7.91 3,066
No

1.35 69
No

0.57 35
No
3 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

4.35 271
No

4.92 2,224
No

0.84 78
No

0.36 41
No
4 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

2.02 279
No

2.28 2,413
No

0.39 78
No

0.17 41
No
5 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

3.35 287
No

3.79 2,601
No

0.65 78
No

0.27 41
No
6 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

3.54 283
No

4.00 2,507
No

0.68 78
No

0.29 41
No
7 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

1.67 270
No

1.89 2,193
No

0.32 78
No

0.14 41
No
8 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?

4.14 279
No

4.69 2,413
No

0.80 78
No

0.34 41
No
9 Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold

3.72 270

4.21 2,193

0.72 71

0.31 36
3227
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Building Compliance Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Table 7, Urban Crossroads, February 2022
TOP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-3 requires new development to provide its own air quality studies consistent with SCAQMD and other applicable guidelines to determine specific air quality impacts of a proposed project on a specific site. Future development may be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures such as distance buffers or the installation of high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters, as appropriate, to protect future sensitive receptors from harmful concentrations of air pollutants as a result of proximity to existing air pollution sources. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, the AQ Study determined the proposed project would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR and no project specific mitigation was required for sensitive receptors. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.A of the CCC SP EIR addressed air quality but did not evaluate the potential for other emissions or odors to affect humans in the project area. No conclusions were made regarding these impacts and no mitigation was recommended in this regard.

TOP EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to other emissions, such as those leading to odors (SEIR p. 5.3-47). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use and is surrounded on the north, east, and south by industrial uses and on the west by the OIA. The warehouse-related uses proposed on the project site will not create objectionable odors. Further, the project shall comply with the policies of the Ontario Municipal Code and TOP regarding solid waste storage and disposal which will prevent potential odor impacts. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR indicated the site was vacant and did not support any listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals at the time the EIR was prepared in 1981. The EIR did not make a firm conclusion that the project would have a significant impact on any biological resources but it did recommend three (3) “permissive” mitigation measures (i.e., actions suggested but not required), which are outlined in Table A.

TOP The EIR concluded that “no sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the City have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species” (SEIR p. 5.4-30). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use.

According to TOP EIR, the project site is located within an area that has been identified as having the potential to contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 3228
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

regional plans, policies or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. These species include: the DSFLF, coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, and various species of nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designation and zoning classification for the site (industrial warehousing). However, there is a potential for burrowing owl and nesting birds to be on the project site. Based on governmental database information, TOP EIR did not identify a potential for any listed or otherwise sensitive species to be present on the project site.

The following biological studies/surveys, all of which are included in Appendix B of this report, were prepared for the proposed project site:
• Burrowing Owls at Ontario International Airport, Biology, Status, Regulatory Setting, and Mitigation Options. Prepared by Helix Environmental/Kidd Biological, Inc. (HE/KB) dated 2020. • California Logistics Center, Pre-Construction Clearance Survey for Burrowing Owl and Other Nesting Bird Species. Prepared by Wood Consulting (WC) dated August 14, 2021. • First Year Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly on a 151-Acre OIA Group 1 Properties in Ontario. Prepared by Osborne Biological Consulting dated October 26, 2019. • Second Year Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly on a 151-Acre OIA Group 1 Properties in Ontario. Prepared by Osborne Biological Consulting (OBC) dated October 7, 2020.
• Updated Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Survey, Fall 2022.

The site is currently undeveloped land that is cleared regularly for weed abatement and fire prevention. Due to its vacant condition and surrounding urban land uses, the project site does not contain or support any listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals other than those discussed below. Species of concern that may have the potential to occur on the project site include the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSFLF), Coast Horned Lizard, Burrowing Owl, and various species of nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Focused onsite surveys were conducted for the DSFLF in 2019-2022. This species is federally listed as endangered and is restricted (endemic) to the Colton Dunes (consisting of Delhi soil series). Delhi soils are fine sandy soils, often wholly or partly sand dunes stabilized by sparse native vegetation. These soils cover approximately 40 square miles in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, underlying portions of the City and other neighboring cities. By 1997, studies indicated that over 97 percent of the area containing this soil type had been converted to agriculture, developed for urban or commercial uses, or otherwise altered. The DSFLF has never been observed in the City. In the past, this species has been found to inhabit areas with sand dune conditions that are underlain by Delhi Sands soils (NRCS2 Series DaD2), Onsite surveys conducted over several years (2019-2022) based on the multi-year protocols established by the USFWS have determined the species is “absent from the site” (OBC 2019- 2022)(Appendix B).

The Coast horned lizard is found in the surrounding region where physical conditions are present to support it. However, no sand dunes or dune-like conditions are present in this portion of the City or on the project site (per TOP EIR), so this species has a negligible potential to actually occur onsite.

At present the only other significant biological resource identified on the site is the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). This bird species is very opportunistic and often inhabits disturbed land quickly by taking over existing small mammal burrows. Several biological resource assessments have been prepared for the project site, most focusing on the presence or the extent/distribution of burrowing owl on the site or adjacent land. The Helix report from 2020 indicated the subject owls on the adjacent OIA property along the east side of Haven Avenue are included in the list of 45 documented owl records for the general area. All of these owl locations are surrounded by development and located on small, highly fragmented sites that do not provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to planned future development and predation pressures. The review of occupied owl sites within a few miles of the OIA property does not indicate any known conserved sites managed for owls that appear to provide any long-term conservation value for the species. Some owl pairs and individuals are known to occupy sites nearby, but these sites are also 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 3229
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

surrounded by development and will not provide meaningful long-term contribution to the status of burrowing owls in this region (HE/KB 2020).

Burrowing owl stay close to their burrows and generally close to the ground for foraging or escaping predators. As a result, burrowing owls are seldom struck by aircraft and certainly not at high rates like geese, red-tailed hawks and vultures. Owls utilize burrows previously constructed by small mammals (e.g., squirrels and rabbits) in the vicinity of the airfields. However, populations of burrowing owl do attract other avian predators such as red-shouldered hawks, Cooper’s hawks, and turkey vultures. Hawks and vultures are struck by aircraft at the highest rates of avian species and cause the most damage per strike. These species are often involved in aircraft strikes while they are hover hunting or circling over prey species on the ground under approach or departure routes. Bird strikes in these situations (landing and take-off) can lead to catastrophic events and hundreds of bird deaths (HE/KB 2020).

Allowing an owl population to remain within an airport landing and takeoff corridor is ignoring a serious wildlife hazard. Eviction or collapsing burrows in an area to force the owls to move out of the immediate area is a temporary solution that is costly to implement and requires extensive monitoring to ensure burrowing owls do not return to the area. Unfortunately, the owls will move only a short distance away to other open habitats within the airport area and will continue to create bird air strike hazards.

Eviction has proven to not be a viable solution, particularly near a major airport. The only viable solutions are active relocation or a direct reduction of the local owl population (HE/KB 2020).

CDFW staff have communicated with burrowing owl researchers and made it very clear not to encourage burrowing owl to reside at or adjacent to commercial or military airfields. Consequences of bird air strikes are too severe and should be avoided. Given the severity of bird air strike incidents, active relocation is the most appropriate technique to conserve breeding pairs (HE/KB 2020).

Based on the presence of the owl in 2019 and 2020 reports, a breeding study starting in March 2022 is being conducted to confirm the continued presence of the species and to determine the number of owls/owl pairs that need to be relocated according to CDFW protocols. Consistent with the TOP 2050 SEIR, the project will comply with existing regulations and TOP 2050 policies through implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program (BRP), which is based on the most recent site-specific technical studies.

Accordingly, compliance with existing plans, laws and regulations will ensure potential impacts to burrowing owl will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program (BRP) which is based on the most recent site-specific technical studies. With implementation of the BRP, potential impacts to burrowing owl will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

In addition, implementation of the BRP for burrowing owl will also help reduce potential impacts to nesting birds on the project site due to tree removal. The removal of burrowing owl from the site and preclusion of additional tall trees on or adjacent to the site will help reduce predation by raptors, which utilize these resources, on other nesting birds onsite.

In addition to the four cited biological studies, Mead & Hunt prepared a report on airport safety (M&H 2022, Appendix E) that expressed concern over the mature pine and sycamore trees located adjacent to the site in the public right-of-way. Those trees would likely be removed during project construction. The study indicated these types of trees are known to attract birds of prey (e.g., Red-tailed hawks) for perching while hunting the burrowing owl that reside in and around the OIA. Since these mid-sized raptors increase the potential for a bird-strike incident, the report strongly recommended that only small tree varieties be located onsite that do not provide suitable perching opportunities for hawks.

The TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that, with regulatory compliance and compliance with TOP 2050’s policies, there would be no impacts to biological resources, and specifically with regard to burrowing owls.

Relative to the discussion of burrowing owl impacts of the Project, it is important to note that TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 from the Environmental Resources Element state the following:

Goal ER-5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
3230
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Policy ER-5.1: Habitat Conservation Areas. We support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.

Policy ER-5.2: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.

To comply with these policies, the Project applicant will prepare and process a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan through CDFW and conduct a Nesting Bird Survey prior to grading. These actions will adequately protect burrowing owl and nesting birds from impacts of developing the Project site, as well as protecting owls from ongoing impacts from OIA operations as well as provide them with a long-term safe and viable relocation/habitation site pursuant to state and federal protection species regulations. With regulatory compliance, TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City would not have significant impacts on listed or sensitive species and no mitigation was recommended.

Compliance with existing plans, laws, and regulations, via Implementation of the recommended BRP and nesting bird survey consistent with TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2, will ensure that the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR found no riparian or wetland resources on the site so it identified no impacts and did not recommend any mitigation.

TOP EIR indicated development “of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation” (SEIR p. 5.4-31). The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. In TOP EIR, the project site was previously analyzed as an industrial use.

TOP EIR does not identify any natural drainage features in this portion of the City due to its urbanized condition. With regulatory compliance, the EIR did not recommend any specific mitigation for future development relative to jurisdictional features.

Based on a review of aerial photographs and onsite surveys listed species, the site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by CDFW or USFWS (GoogleEarth, HE/KB 2020). Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR and TOP EIR did not identify any wetland habitat or resources on the project site or in the immediate surrounding area due to its urban condition. The EIR stated TOP “would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to state or federally protected wetlands. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the [TOP 2050] were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds” (SEIR p. 5.4- 33).

According to aerial photographs, the site is vacant and no drainage areas or wetland habitat are present on the project site (GoogleEarth). Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
3231
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR and TOP EIR did not identify any drainages or wetland habitat that could support fish on the project site, and the site is not located within an identified wildlife movement corridor due to its physical condition and development of the surrounding area.

TOP EIR found that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City so it did not result in substantial adverse effects to wildlife movement (SEIR p. 5.4-33).

According to aerial photographs, the site is vacant with no drainages or native vegetation present (GoogleEarth). As a result, there are no wildlife corridors connecting this site to other areas. The project site and area may support nesting birds so in order to comply with existing laws, plans, and regulations, the project will conduct a nesting bird survey. With this compliance, a Nesting Bird Survey is recommended and will be conducted to help assure there will be no impacts to migratory birds. With implementation of the nesting bird survey and regulatory compliance, the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any local policies or ordinances relative to biological resources and the project site, so there were no conclusions about impacts, or any mitigation recommended.

TOP EIR indicates the City includes the Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF with 21.7 square miles mainly in the eastern and southwestern portions of the City (i.e., not on or adjacent to the project site), The EIR concluded TOP would not conflict with the requirements of the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit (SEIR p. 5.4-34). It should also be noted the project will prepare a BRP and nesting bird survey to comply with the previously cited Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 from the Environmental Resources Element of TOP 2050.

The City’s Development Code requires replacement of trees removed. The species of tree selected for planting must be relatively short at maturity to be consistent with FAA restrictions and so as to not attract raptors to the site which could represent a bird strike hazard to the airport operational areas (i.e., takeoffs and landings).

The project will also conduct a nesting bird survey prior to removal of onsite or site-adjacent trees related to project construction. With implementation of the BRP, nesting bird survey, and limits on future tree plantings, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR does not mention any HCPs or NCCPs that apply to the City as none existed at that time. TOP EIR only acknowledges a small portion of the City that contains an HCP for DSFLF but this plan does not apply to the proposed Project, and there are no HCPs or NCCPs to protect biological resources that affect the proposed Project site.

The site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The project will not result in any new, increased 3232
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation required.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI. C of the CCC SP EIR indicated the region had been inhabited for hundreds of years but a cultural survey of the site found no resources on the site. The CCC SP EIR found no historic resources on the project site but recommended generalized MMs that have since been superseded by standard City conditions of approval as explained in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measure 17 in column 1 of the table.

TOP EIR concluded that buildout of TOP could result in significant impacts to historical resources or paleontological resources, but Mitigation Measure 5-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (SEIR p. 5.5-23). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use.

The project site is vacant and does not contain any buildings or structures constructed more than 50 years ago and cannot be considered for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. Two cultural resource assessments (CRAs), which are included in Appendix C to this report, were conducted on the project site by Helix Environmental Planning (HEP 2019a, 2019b). According to the CRAs, a Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted on March 7, 2019, at the California Historic Resource Inventory System at the South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The records search indicated that there are no cultural resources (prehistoric, historic, or built environments) recorded within the project boundaries. A pedestrian survey of the site was conducted by Helix archaeological staff in March 2019.

The records search results identified seven previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project area, none of which are located within the project site (Table 11, Local Cultural Resources).

Two of the resources within the search limits, the Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, are listed as California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and one resource, the Hofer Ranch, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, are located to the northwest of the project area, north of the railroad.

The Hofer Ranch is located to the southwest. The pedestrian survey found a possible historic-period well comprised of a metal pipe with no markings in the northwest portion of the survey area. Although the age of the well is unknown, it was observed on the historic aerial photographs of the project area, which was cultivated for agriculture in the early 1900’s.

Table 11: Local Cultural Resources
Resource
Number
(P-36-#)
Resource
Number
(CA-SBR-#)
Age and
Resources
Present1 Description Recorder, Date
001963 1963H Historic Site Remnants of a homestead/ranch, possibly associated with the Collins
family who owned the property in the
late 1800s
McKenna, 1987
001964 1964H Historic
Structure
Small shed containing modern pumping
equipment
McKenna, 1987
015469 -- Historic Site Guasti (Brookside) Winery
(CPHI # 84)
Hansberger, 1975
015471 -- Historic Site San Secondo D’Asti Catholic Church (CPHI # 76)
Hansberger, 1975
015990 -- Historic
Structures/
Historic District
Guasti Historic District; consists of 51
resources (buildings, houses, etc.)
constructed between 1900 and 1946
Warner and
Solie, 1985
016249 -- Historic Site Hofer Ranch (NR #93000596), also known as Ballou Ranch & Ben Haven;
farm complex consisting of 15
Hofer and Warner,
1985; Marvin and
Goodwin, 2004
3233
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

resources (buildings and structures)
constructed between 1905 and 1985
016279 -- Historic Building Guasti Mansion; constructed in the Italian-Villa architectural style in 1922
Warner and Solie,
1985
Source: Cultural Resources Survey for the Potential Development of Parcel Group 1, Helix Environmental Planning.

April 15, 2019.
1 Previously recorded resources within one mile of the Project site The CRAs indicate that the presence of a possible historic-age well onsite does not constitute a significant historic resource under CEQA as they are prevalent throughout Southern California and do not convey any historic information about the project area.

The CRA nevertheless recommended the project adequately document the existing well/pipe using the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. This Wellsite Documentation will be completed prior to grading of the project site as outlined previously in TOP Implementation Action CUL1.

With implementation of the Wellsite Documentation, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI. C of the CCC SP EIR indicated the region had been inhabited by Native American tribes but a cultural survey of the site found no archaeological or other cultural resources on the site. Although it is permissive rather than mandatory, one (1) mitigation measure was recommended to reduce impacts as outlined in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measure 17 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR (Section 5.5) indicates no archeological sites or resources have been recorded in the City with the Archeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum. The CRAs prepared for the project site included a pedestrian survey, a record search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and a review of existing documentation for the project site and surrounding area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a SLF search on April 1, 2019, and a response was received on April 15, 2019, indicating the project site contained no identified archaeological or tribal resources.

The CHRIS-SCCIC records search conducted for the CRA did not identify prehistoric resources within or adjacent to the project boundaries. The NAHC SLF search also did not indicate any archaeological resources or artifacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) were located within the project site.

Table 11 above demonstrates the seven cultural resources found in the surrounding area were historical and not archaeological in nature. The project site has been highly disturbed by modern human activities including agricultural use from the 1940’s through the 1960’s that could have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, it is not anticipated the proposed project will impact archaeological or identified TCRs.

While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its disturbed nature, the project will implement TOP MM CUL 5-2 to ensure that, in the event of unanticipated archeological discoveries, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine significance of these resources.

If the find is discovered to be historical or unique archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The following mitigation measure from TOP EIR is applicable to the project:

MM CUL 5-2. In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the 3234
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not address the issue of human remains but Section VI. C did discuss past habitation by Native American tribes. A cultural survey found no archaeological or other cultural artifacts on the site and did not recommend any mitigation.

TOP EIR states there are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, but none on or adjacent to the project site. Future development and grading of sensitive areas may disturb human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries (SEIR p. 5.5-20).

The proposed project is in a general area that has been previously disturbed by human activity. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during any construction activities. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. Per state law, in the event unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been completed, if deemed applicable.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The Project shall implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 as outlined above.

6. ENERGY Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.F of the CCC SP EIR evaluated energy “conservation” but just estimated the amount of energy that would be used, in terms of electricity, natural gas, and vehicular fuels, during construction and operation of the project. The EIR did recommend seven (7) mitigation measures to help reduce energy use on the site. Those measures are addressed in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 19, 21-25, and 80 in column 1 of the table). The EIR did not make a specific conclusion as to whether the project would result in significant impacts to energy resources.

Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. TOP EIR concluded TOP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction or result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts (SEIR p.

5.6-13).
3235
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation. A detailed discussion is provided below.

Electricity
Construction. Temporary electric power would be required for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by the construction crew. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. An Energy Assessment (EA) prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads in March 2022, a copy of which is included in Appendix A -1 to this report, indicated that construction of warehousing, both cold storage and fulfilment center uses, plus parking, landscaping, and other asphalt surfaces would consume 6,276,680 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity (Table 10, UC 2022).

Operational. The proposed project entails the construction of nine new warehouse buildings, which are consistent with TOP and CCC SP land uses designated for the property. These warehouse uses will be similar in design and operation to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area, and will have similar energy use during operation to existing warehouses in the City. Operation of the project would require electricity for multiple purposes, such as: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. The EA estimated the operation of stationary equipment as part of the project buildings would consume 34,405,914 kWh per year of electricity and 40,546,270 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year (Table 15, UC 2022).

The project will be required to comply with the CALGreen Building Code (CBC) requirements in effect at the time of development. Moreover, the project will implement the GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table 2 for Commercial and Industrial Development (see Appendix A-2 to this report). The project will be responsible for implementing the indicated measures as required by the City’s development review process. The Screening Table included energy efficient development measures, indoor space efficiency measures, building efficiency measures, renewable energy measures, and water conservation measures. PDF that would reduce electricity consumption include but are not limited to: greatly enhanced window insulation over CBC limits, an enhanced cool-roof, an improved efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, enhanced duct insulation, Energy Star commercial appliances, water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and water-efficient toilets and faucets. Although electricity consumption would increase at the site with implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. With implementation of these various measures, the electricity that would be consumed by the project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction. Natural gas consumption is not anticipated during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction would generally consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed in the next subsection. The EA concludes that any amounts of natural gas that may be consumed during project construction would be nominal and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.

Operational. The proposed project is consistent with TOP and CCC SP. Warehouse uses will be similar in size and appearance to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and will have similar natural gas use during operation. During operation, the project would require natural gas consumption for various purposes, such as building heating and cooling. The EA estimated the operation of stationary equipment as part of the project buildings would consume 40,546,270 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year (Table 15, UC 2022).

All future structure developed on the site would be built to the 2016 Title 24 CALGreen efficiency requirements or the code in effect at the time of development. In addition, measures will be applied based on the information contained in the City’s GHG checklist (see Appendix A-2). These measures include, but are not limited to: enhanced wall, attic, and window insulation; high efficiency water heater, and optimized building orientation. Although natural gas consumption would increase at the site under implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. The project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in the CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the natural gas that would be consumed by the project is not 3236
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Diesel and Gasoline Fuel
Construction. Diesel and gasoline fuels, also referred to as petroleum in this subsection, would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed over the course of construction, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries to the site) and worker trips to and from the site would also result in petroleum consumption. Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasoline-powered vehicles. The EA estimated that project construction would consume 335,494 gallons of diesel fuel for offroad vehicles and equipment, 932,311 gallons of gasoline over approximately a four-year period for worker travel to and from the site, and 496,539 gallons of gasoline for vendor trips and hauling (Tables 11-13, UC 2022).

The project will be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and required to conduct development activities, it would not be wasteful or inefficient, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational. Fuel consumption associated with the project’s operational phase would primarily be attributable to workers commuting to and from the project and the operation of large, diesel-powered trucks (e.g., semi-trucks) needed to transport goods. Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the employees is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation is anticipated to decrease over time. The EA estimated project-generated traffic would consume a total of 3,107,417 gallons of fuel for all types of vehicles and generate a total of 46,037,767 VMT each year (Table 14, UC 2022, Appendix A-1).

There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in California. In addition, CARB adopted a regional goal for the SCAG region of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% in 2020 and 19% in 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles. Accordingly, operation of the project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to improvements in state-wide fuel economy over time. Although the project would increase petroleum use in the region during construction and operation, the use would be a small incremental fraction of the statewide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. As such, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not be considered to be inefficient or wasteful so its energy-related impacts would be less than significant.

The project will comply with Title 24 and other applicable state energy conservation regulations as recommended in TOP EIR. In November 2014, the City adopted the most current version of the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) which includes energy conservation that results from implementation of the recommended GHG reduction measures. To comply with TOP EIR, the project will implement the items outlined in the GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table (see GHG Study, Appendix A). As shown therein, the project garners a total of 103 points, so it is consistent with the City’s CCAP, including energy conservation. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project-specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.F of the CCC SP EIR evaluated energy “conservation,” but just estimated the amount of energy that would be used, in terms of electricity, natural gas, and vehicular fuels, during construction and operation of the project. The EIR did recommend seven (7) mitigation measures to help reduce energy use on the site. Those measures are outlined in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 19, 21-25, and 80 in column 1 of the table). The EIR did not make a specific conclusion as to whether the project would result in significant impacts to energy resources or if it was consistent with energy conservation plans or regulations.
3237
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (SEIR p. 5.6-14).

The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards for non-residential buildings address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption. As described above, the project would be required to comply with the Title 24 CALGreen standards current at that time and would implement additional measures as identified in the City’s CCAP screening table checklist for industrial projects (Appendix A). Since each new building will comply with applicable State standards and adhere to the City’s CCAP, which includes energy reductions measures, the project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

This impact would be less than significant, and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

7. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. Discussion of Effects: Section VI.J of the CCC SP EIR does not identify any active faults on or in the vicinity of the project site, although it does discuss regional faults. The EIR concluded the site would be subject to strong groundshaking and recommended three (3) mitigation measures, which are now required as regulatory compliance in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 45-47 in column 1 of the table).

According to TOP EIR, there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section 5.7/Figure

5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to seismic-related hazards (SEIR p. 5.7-19).

Given that the closest fault zone is located more than eight miles from the project site, fault rupture within the project area is not likely. All development will comply with the CBC seismic design standards to reduce geologic hazard susceptibility. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.J of the CCC SP EIR indicates the site would be subject to strong groundshaking and recommended three (3) mitigation measures, which are now required as regulatory compliance in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 45-47 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR indicates there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section 5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The closest fault zone is located more than eight miles from the Project site.
3238
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The proximity of the site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will be in compliance with the CBC, the City Municipal Code (CMC), TOP and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils but does not identify any specific soil constraints on the site. The EIR made no conclusions regarding ground failure or liquefaction and did not recommend any mitigation measures.

As identified in TOP EIR (Section 5.7), groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. TOP EIR indicates that depths to groundwater in the project site vicinity during the winter months is estimated to be over 200 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal. Implementation of TOP strategies in the Safety Element regarding seismic building design, the CBC and the CMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils but does not identify any specific constraints regarding landslides. The site and surrounding areas are relatively flat and no major slopes are present.

TOP EIR did not identify any significant slopes in the City or the project area, so there were no impacts related to landslides and no mitigation is needed.

The project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides because the relatively flat topography of the project site (less than two percent slope) and the proposed grading plan indicate the chances of landslides onsite would be remote. The project proposes nine new buildings on the site consistent with TOP and CCC SP land use designations.

Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils but does not identify any specific erosion impacts. However, it does recommend one (1) permissive mitigation measure requiring an erosion control plan as part of development. That measure is addressed in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measure 51 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR concluded that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that potential impacts from erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-20).

The project site will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the previously disturbed nature of the project site, the covering over of the site by mainly impervious surfaces, and implementation of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), included in Appendix F of this report, for water quality control (including erosion). Grading increases the potential for erosion by 3239
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer will ensure no significant impacts will occur. In addition, the City requires an erosion/dust control plan for projects located within this area.

Implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), consistent with the federal water quality permitting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) program, the Environmental Resource Element of TOP Policy Plan strategies, the CBC, and the CMC, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils but does not identify the potential for any of these specific constraints. The CCC SP EIR concluded the project would not have any impacts relative to soils or geology but recommended three (3) mitigation measures for these impacts. However, these measures have since been superseded by regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval by the City as shown in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 49-51 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR (Section 5.7) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from an aquifer. The project would use domestic water supplies and would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The EIR states that future projects under TOP could expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from lateral spreading, ground subsidence, liquefaction, and compressible soils, However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur (SEIR p. 5.7-21).

The City is relatively flat, including the project site, so the risk of landslides is negligible.

The new light industrial buildings would not result in the location of development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because as previously discussed, the potential for liquefaction and landslides associated with the project is less than significant. Further, implementation of TOP strategies, the CBC and the CMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not create greater landslide potential impacts than were identified in TOP EIR.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any specific soil constraints, including expansive soils, on the project site, so the EIR concluded there were no impacts and no mitigation was required with regulatory compliance (i.e., CBC).

TOP EIR identified limited soil stability impacts of future development if expansive or other soil constraints were present beneath structures. TOP EIR recommended compliance with the CBC and CMC to assure impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-21).

The majority of Ontario, including the project site, is located on alluvial, and in some areas, aeolian (i.e., sandy) soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. In addition, specific soil conditions beneath each proposed building will be verified and addressed by specific foundation design to be confirmed by City Engineering. Therefore, no adverse impacts will occur.

Through the City’s development and design review process, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary. 3240
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.N of the CCC SP EIR addresses wastewater and provide information about local sewers but does not mention septic or alternative systems. Two (2) mitigation measures are recommended to have a complete onsite sewer that meets all regulatory requirements as shown in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measure 74-75 in column 1 of the table) .

TOP EIR states that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant. Wastewater from Ontario is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on a case-by-case basis (SEIR p. 5.7-22).

The area is served by the local sewer system and the use of alternative systems is not necessary.

Future sewer service is based on planned land uses and sizing of pipes and treatment facilities to accommodate planned growth. Since the project is consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations on the site, there will be no significant impacts to the sewage system.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources and no mitigation was recommended.

TOP EIR indicates the City is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and Upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene time, Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are, therefore, considered to have high sensitivity at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. In addition, TOP EIR (Section 5.5) indicates that only one paleontological resource has been discovered in the City. The project site has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north or as dune sands. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain by older sedimentary materials at estimated depths greater than 10 feet which could contain paleontological resources.

Project grading may exceed 10 feet in depth in some areas so the project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, as outlined previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources, as this measure addresses paleontological resources. The measure requires that, in the event unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate resource protection actions will be taken.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2. No project specific mitigation is required.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
3241
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Discussion of Effects: In 1981 the State CEQA Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) did not require an examination of impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, therefore, that topic was not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

TOP EIR determined TOP would have a significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to the generation of GHG emissions (SEIR p. 5.7-26).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use. The impact of buildout of the TOP on the environment due to the emission of GHGs was analyzed in the EIR for the Policy Plan of TOP. According to TOP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for TOP’s significant and unavoidable impacts, including that concerning the emission of GHGs. Developing the site with planned industrial uses on the site will not create significantly greater impacts than were identified in TOP EIR. The project will implement PDF to reduce GHG emissions as outlined in the City’s GHG Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table (see GHG Study, Appendix A-2 dated 12/14/21). This Screening Table provides guidance in measuring the reduction of GHG emissions attributable to certain design and construction measures incorporated into development projects. The analysis, methodology, and significance determination (thresholds) are based upon the City’s CCAP, which includes GHG emission inventories (2008 and 2020 forecasts), a year 2020 emission reduction target, the goals and policies to reach the target, together with TOP EIR Addendum prepared for the CCAP.

The Screening Table assigns points for each option incorporated into a project as mitigation or a PDF (collectively referred to as "feature"). The point values correspond to the minimum emissions reduction expected from each feature. The menu of features allows maximum flexibility and options for how development projects can implement the GHG reduction measures. The point levels are based upon improvements compared to 2008 emission levels of efficiency. Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City's CCAP. As such, those projects that garner a total of 100 points or greater would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions.

Consistent with the City CEQA Guidelines, and development review process, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. As shown in the project GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table (see GHG Study, Appendix A), the project will implement actions to achieve a total of 103 points and thus is consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CCAP. Therefore, quantification of project-specific GHG emissions is not required.

Additionally, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this impact need not be analyzed further, because (1) the proposed project would result in an impact that was previously analyzed in TOP EIR, which was certified by the City; (2) the proposed project would not result in any GHG impacts that were not addressed in TOP EIR; (3) the proposed project is consistent with TOP. The proposed impacts of the project were already analyzed in TOP EIR and the project will be built to current energy efficient standards. Potential impacts of project implementation will be less than significant by compliance with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards of the California Code of Regulations. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary. The PDF outlined above, consistent with the GHG Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table (see Appendix A-2) adequately address any GHG impacts and there is no need for any project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: In 1981, the State CEQA Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) did not require an examination of impacts related to GHG emissions, therefore, that topic was not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

The EIR determined TOP was consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions including CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal (SEIR p. 5.8-27).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use. By implementing TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 regarding air pollutant emissions, the proposed project is 3242
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

consistent with TOP Goal ER 4 of improving air quality by, among other things, implementation of Policy ER 4-3, regarding the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the policies outlined in Section 5.6.4 of the EIR for TOP, which aims to reduce the City’s contribution of GHG emissions at build-out by implementing energy efficient design, energy efficient irrigation systems, electric vehicle charging stations, and compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Since it achieves at least 100 points using the Screening Table (see GHG Study, Appendix A-2), the project is consistent with the City’s CCAP.

Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: Project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 but no project specific mitigation is required.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR concluded the project would have no impacts regarding hazards or hazardous materials and did not recommend any mitigation measures.

TOP EIR determined that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure less than significant impacts from transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. It further concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials, and emission and handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste (SEIR p. 5.9-37).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a light industrial use. The project will not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or project implementation based on the land use restrictions for industrial uses in TOP. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. However, in the unlikely event of an accident, implementation of the strategies included in TOP regarding emergency services such as police and fire will decrease the potential for health and safety risks from hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP limits the use of flammable, explosive, or other hazardous materials by onsite light industrial uses. In addition, hazardous materials are regulated by a variety of federal and state agencies. Therefore, the CCC SP EIR did not anticipate any significant impacts related to hazardous materials with regulatory compliance, and no mitigation was recommended.

TOP EIR concluded that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure that development under TOP would not exacerbate hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites (SEIR p. 5.9-39).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use. Under the CCC SP, the proposed project would not involve the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. In addition, there are no known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the subject site, which use/store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors/occupants to the subject site. Therefore, upset conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials are not anticipated.
3243
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not evaluate potential impacts of the project from hazardous materials and nearby schools, most likely because there are no schools within a quarter mile of the project site.

TOP EIR concluded that a number of hazardous material facilities were within a quarter mile of various schools in the City and impacts were potentially significant, such that mitigation was recommended.

However, the project site is not within a quarter mile of any school sites so there will be no impacts and no mitigation is required relative to TOP EIR analysis.

Under the CCC SP, the project cannot involve the use, emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: This list was not in place when the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981.

However, there are no Cortese sites on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (i.e., a quarter-mile radius around the site).

TOP EIR identified that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element in addition to existing regulations ensured that development of TOP would not exacerbate existing hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to location on a site which is included on a list of hazard materials.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Proposed Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft SEIR pg. 5.9-39) The project site is not listed on the hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment and no impact is anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. For a project located within the safety zone of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT or Chino Airports, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.B of the CCC SP EIR examined potential issues related to hazards from the OIA (“airport expansion”) and recommended three (3) mitigation measures, mainly regarding noise, as outlined in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 14-16 in column 1 of the table).

Sections 5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and 5.11 (Land Use and Planning) of TOP EIR indicated that with proper land-use planning, aircraft safety risks could be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes.
3244
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The Land Use Element of TOP 2050 states that all new developments surrounding ONT should be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and should meet standards and recommendations of Part 77 of the FAA, adopted through Ordinance 2758 in the Ontario Municipal Code. A consistency determination analysis for the ONT was prepared by the City and submitted to ONT-IAC and found that TOP 2050 is consistent with ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2022). Similar to the proposed project, TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT because the general land use designations within the airport influence area are the same.

The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant impact associated with consistency with the OIA ALUCP (SEIR p. 5.9-41). The project site is not within the planning area of the Chino Airport.

The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of OIA. The site is located within Airport Safety Zones 1, 2 and 3, and within three Noise Impact Zones of the airport. As a result, an airport safety report was prepared by Mead & Hunt in January 2022 (Appendix E).

Just west of the project site is an airport “clear zone,” which is part of its aircraft landing approach zones for Runways 26R and 26L (Aircraft Safety Zone 2). As shown in the previous Figure 4, the OIA and the CCC SP designate the central portion of the Project site as a “low employee intensity area” approximately 1,700 feet wide (850 feet on both sides of Santa Ana Street) to protect the OIA clear zone and landing aircraft.

The basic function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between OIA and the land uses that surround it in order to avoid future compatibility conflicts. The ALUCP policies address four types of airport land use concerns:
• Noise – Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise. • Overflights – Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people. • Safety – Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground.
• Airspace Protection – Places where height and certain other land use characteristics need to be restricted to protect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace.

Noise. The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establishment of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. As shown in Figure 6, Noise Impacts, the project site falls within three ALUCP Noise Impact Zones: 65-70 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); 70-75 dB CNEL; and 75-80 dB CNEL. The ALUCP noise criteria indicate that office uses are considered normally incompatible in areas exposed to CNEL 75 dB or greater unless extensive mitigation techniques are applied to make the indoor environment (with windows closed) acceptable for performance of expected activities (i.e., maximum of 50 dB CNEL). In the lower Noise Impact Zones, office spaces are deemed to be conditionally compatible if a maximum interior noise level of CNEL 50 dB is achieved through incorporation of proper sound attenuation design. The requirement also applies to Light Industrial Uses in the 70-80 dB CNEL Noise Impact Zones. Warehousing is deemed to be a compatible use in all three zones.

TOP EIR contains Mitigation Measure 12-1 to address noise impacts from future development projects:
12-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour along major roadways, freeways, railroads, or the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features (e.g., setbacks, berms, or sound walls) and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).

To comply with this requirement, the developer retained Mead and Hunt to prepare an airport hazards assessment of the proposed project, including airport-related noise (see Appendix E). The recommended TOP Implementation Actions for noise are tiered off of and directly implement the requirements of TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1 regarding airport noise.

With implementation of TOP Mitigation Measure 12-1 and the two TOP Implementation Actions for noise recommended by the Mead & Hunt study, the project will have less than significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of TOP EIR and supporting projectrelated studies. 3245
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Figure 6: NOISE IMPACTS
Source: Exhibit 2, M&H 2022
Overflights. Noise from individual aircraft operations, especially by comparatively loud aircraft, can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the noise impact zones. The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make more informed decisions regarding acquisition or lease of property in the affected area. As shown in Figure 7, Overflight Impacts, the project falls entirely with the Overflight Notification Zone - Avigation Easement Dedication. The ALUCP requires dedication of an avigation easement to the OIA owner/operator prior to commencement of construction as a COA of new development. This requirement is codified in the recommended PDF/COA included in the Mead & Hunt study (Appendix E). 3246
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Figure 7: OVERFLIGHT IMPACTS
Source: Exhibit 4, M&H 2022
Safety Zones. The intent of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur. For most nonresidential development, risk is measured in terms of the usage intensity—the number of people per acre on the site. Local development standards (e.g., floor area ratios, parking requirements) and building code occupancies can be used to calculate nonresidential usage intensities. The ALUCP safety criteria for light industrial, warehouse, and office uses are presented in Figure 8, ALUCP Safety Criteria. As shown in Figure 9, Safety Zones, the Project site spans the following Safety Zones: Safety Zone 1, RPZ; Safety Zone 2, Inner Approach/Departure Zone; and Safety Zone 3, Inner Turning Zone. Although 14.56 acres of the Project site fall within Safety Zone 1, which encompasses the RPZs for Runways 26L and 26R, the proposed site plan keeps this zone clear of future structures and parking lots. As such, no compatibility conflicts exist in Safety Zone 1, which is the most restrictive of all the safety zones. For Safety Zones 2 and 3, the individual proposed building sites are subject to the ALUCP usage intensity (people per acre) limits for each zone. In accordance with ALUCP Policy S2, any site that is split by safety zone boundaries is treated as if it were multiple parcels divided at the safety zone boundary.

The “maximum allowable occupancy” is the primary criterion by which to evaluate the compatibility of each lessee’s proposed specific use or combination of uses within each building (see previous Table 2).

The City controls the ultimate determination of compliance with the ALUCP usage criteria, and those determinations will occur when a potential tenant(s) is identified for each building and a specific land use is proposed. The CCC SP includes a mix of light industrial or warehouse uses with ancillary office space. In addition to maximum allowable occupancy, each building has a “theoretical occupancy” which is the calculated total intensity of each building assuming that the building is developed as either a light industrial/office use or warehouse/office use (see previous Table 3). The previous Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that high-intensity light industrial uses would likely exceed the maximum allowable occupancy limits for Zone 2. Buildings located in Zone 2 are therefore better suited for low intensity light industrial and 3247
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

warehouse uses. Those limits are codified in the recommended TOP Implementation Actions for noise included in the Mead & Hunt study (Appendix E).

Figure 8: ALUCP SAFETY CRITERIA
Source: Exhibit 6, M&H 2022
3248
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Figure 9: SAFETY ZONES
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent the creation of land use features that can pose hazards to the airspace required by aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident. Categories of hazards to airspace include: physical hazards such as tall structures that may intrude upon protected airspace and land use; and features that have the potential to attract birds or other potentially hazardous wildlife to the airport area. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 establishes height limits to provide a margin of safety for normal aircraft operations. Objects that exceed the Part 77 height limits constitute airspace obstructions. However, the standards are not absolute and deviation from the CFR Part 77 standards requires the offending objects be evaluated by the FAA and may be considered for marking or lighting application if appropriate.

Figure 10, Airspace Impacts, shows the layout of the proposed buildings at the project site. The heights of the buildings are required to be reported to the FAA by a completed Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. The building elevations are reported as the roof height with 10 feet added to account for building appurtenances such as, but not limited to, parapets and heating ventilation equipment, pursuant to the TOP Implementation Actions for airport hazards outlined in the Mead & Hunt report (Appendix E).

The Mead & Hunt Report (Appendix E) concluded the project has been conceptually designed to keep all future structures below the Part 77 obstruction surfaces and the other FAA clear areas noted in N
3249
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Figure 10. Additionally, FAA Form 7460-1 has been submitted to the FAA for an aeronautical study for all nine buildings. FAA airspace determinations would have to be received and incorporated as necessary into the project design prior to commencement of construction.

Figure 10: AIRSPACE IMPACTS
Source: Exhibit 12, M&H 2022
To be consistent with TOP and its EIR, it must be demonstrated and assured the proposed project does not conflict with the ALUCP and related safety issues involving OIA. The project must comply with TOP EIR restriction that which states…”before any structure is placed within these areas, a permit is required to ensure that structures do not become a hazard to air navigation and that development is consistent with Part 77” (TOP EIR p. 5.8-27). This compliance requires the project to implement the various TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the project description of this document as part of the City’s development review and approval process and ALUCP consistency determination.

The project was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for OIA which in turn would ensure the project is consistent with TOP and its EIR with implementation of 10 specific actions (see TOP Implementation Actions/Regulatory Compliance in the Project Description). The Mead & Hunt study (Appendix E) recommended the following actions to reduce potential hazard-related impacts of OIA on the project which will be implemented by the project:

1. Regarding overflights, an avigation easement shall be filed with the OIA Authority prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy;

2. Regarding safety, it shall be demonstrated to the OIA Authority and the City that each building meets the ALUCP intensity requirements prior to issuance of a building permit.

3. Regarding airspace, a ground lease agreement will be entered into between the applicant and the City contingent upon a “no airspace hazard determination” by the FAA.

4. Regarding wildlife hazards, buildings shall be designed to eliminate trees and other physical supports for raptors and other large birds.

5. Also regarding wildlife hazards, landscaping plans shall use short tree varieties.

6. Regarding outdoor lighting, the project shall have no lighting directed toward the airport property.
3250
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

7. Regarding glare, the project shall not utilize any glare-producing materials on buildings within the airport safety zone.

8. Also regarding glare, a glare analysis should be prepared for any rooftop solar systems consistent with FAA glare limitations.

9. Regarding temporary equipment heights, the construction schedule must be coordinated with the OIA Authority to preclude impacts to airport operations by the height/location of cranes.

10. The Mead & Hunt airport safety report made recommendations about onsite surface detention basins. However, only underground retention/detention facilities are proposed as part of this project so there will be no impacts in this regard.

The project site lies outside the boundaries of the Chino Airport Influence Area (i.e., the next closest airport). Therefore, any impacts regarding airport safety and compatibility of that facility will be less than significant. The following TOP Implementation Actions are based on the recommendations of the M&H airport safety report to comply with the recommendations of TOP EIR Section 5.9, Impact 5.9-3. They are described fully in the Project Description portion of this document and summarized by title below:
1: Avigation Easements
2: Building Intensity
3: Part 77 Height Limits
4: Architectural Design
5: Landscaping
6: Lighting Fixtures
7: Glare Control
8: Glare Analysis
9: Construction Coordination
The M&H report concluded the project was consistent with the most current 2018 ALUCP, therefore, potential safety impacts from its proximity to the OIA will be less than significant with implantation of the recommended TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the Project Description. With implementation of the recommended TOP Implementation Actions relative to airport safety, the project will be consistent with the requirements of TOP EIR and will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to the TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

It should be noted the CCC SP EIR concluded the project would have no impacts regarding hazards or noise but did recommend two (2) mitigation measures to address noise impacts from airport operations as shown in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 15 and 16 in column 1 of the table). However, these measures have since been superseded by the City’s internal noise standards incorporated into TOP Noise Element.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: When the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981, the following wildfire-related issues were not part of the State CEQA Checklist so emergency response planning or evacuation routes were not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

TOPEIR concluded TOP would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. According to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP, the threat of flood is the City’s greatest hazard as large portions of the City are within the flood zone (i.e., the project site is within the 500-year flood zone). Figure S-10 of TOP indicates that Haven Avenue to the west, Airport Drive to the north, and Jurupa Street to the south are designated evacuation routes in the City. The City's Safety Element, as contained within TOP, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impairment of or interference with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (SEIR p. 5.9-41). 3251
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. Because the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion of Effects: When the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981, wildfire was not a specific issue of the State CEQA Checklist, so emergency response planning or evacuation routes were not addressed in the CCC SP EIR. However, the site is not located in a state responsibility area or lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.

TOP EIR indicates the City would result in less than significant risks from wildfire hazards. The City is outside of the state responsibility area, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wildland fires (SEIR p. 5.9-42). Figure S-04 from TOP indicates the project site is not within any designated wildfire area.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report. EIR Exhibit 20 did show the runoff input and output through the proposed storm drain master plan for the project.

Section VI.O of the CCC SP EIR addresses water supply and quality. The EIR evaluates overall water consumption compared to the Water Master Plan Report (EIR was prepared before requirements for Urban Water Management Plans). The discussion about water quality focused on the potable water supply and ways onsite equipment could contaminate drinking water, not regional water quality permitting requirements. The EIR recommended four (4) mitigation measures regarding water and sewer systems not contaminating drinking water supplies (i.e., not control of runoff water quality) as shown in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measures 50-51 and 74-75 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR concluded there would be less than significant impacts related to water quality from development activities associated with future development under TOP. Nearly the entire City is developed, and implementation of TOP would not substantially alter the amount of developed land in the City. TOP EIR would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to surface or groundwater quality (SEIR p. 5.10-21).

The project site is served by City water and sewer service and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing, waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work) areas could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids, trash and debris, oil and grease, organic compounds, pesticides, nutrients, heavy metals and bacteria pathogens in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is required to comply with the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Industrial Activities 3252
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the City Municipal Code (CMC) Title 6, Chapter 6 (Stormwater Drainage System). This compliance would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance.

A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) was prepared for the project by Thienes Engineering in December 2021 (TE 2022)(Appendix F), which identifies how the site will comply with storm water discharge and water quality management requirements of the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs), such as infiltration, biotreatment and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP would include the use of underground stormwater infiltration systems for each of the nine building development sites. There will also be gravity separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter, and oil and grease. Any overflow drainage from future development will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway culverts. The Water Quality Site Map in the PWQMP demonstrates the project will retain/detain a volume of water equal or greater than the design capture volume (DCV) for the entire property (905,754 v. 904,127 cubic feet, respectively) (TE 2022).

The airport safety report (Appendix E) prepared by Mead & Hunt stated that onsite surface stormwater drainage facilities (e.g., bioretention ponds) on the project site need to be designed to provide a 48-hour drawdown following a design storm event (i.e., 24-hour storm). The PWQMP indicates all retention/detention facilities will be underground, which will therefore preclude potential wildlife hazards that could result from surface water features.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project, but did not address groundwater recharge. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report.

Section VI.O of the CCC SP EIR includes one (1) mitigation measure to help protect local groundwater (MM 78 – install recharge/retention basin) as outlined in Table A (see CCCSP EIR Measure 32 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge and supply for TOP. At buildout, TOP is forecast to increase residential units by 25,399 and increase nonresidential square footage by 1,092,508 square feet; future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater recharge. TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impediment of sustainable groundwater management of the basin (SEIR p. 5.10-23).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as an industrial use. No increases in the current amount of water flow to the project site are anticipated, and the proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge. The water use associated with the proposed use of the property was included in TOP EIR analysis. For development of the site, grading and excavation is expected to be less than 25 feet and would not reach a depth that could affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be over 200 feet below the ground surface. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
3253
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project but did not address erosion. A project hydrology study was prepared but the EIR but did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report. In addition, Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils. but does not identify any specific erosion impacts. However, it does recommend one (1) mitigation measure requiring an erosion control plan as part of development (see CCCSP EIR Measure 51 in column 1 of Table A)
TOP EIR concluded that implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts.

Therefore, development would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (SEIR p. 5.10-24).

The project Hydro Report and PWQMP (Appendix F) demonstrate that the project will not alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, in a manner that would result in erosion, siltation or flooding on-or-off site, nor will the proposed Project increase the erosion of the subject site or surrounding areas. The existing drainage pattern of the site will not be altered, and it will have no significant impact on downstream hydrology. Stormwater generated by the project will be discharged in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements.

With the full implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program, the project’s potential impact would be reduced to below a level of significance. No streams or streambeds are present on the site. No changes in erosion off-site are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff water in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project, but did not specifically address flooding other than storm drain concerns. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report.

TOP EIR states that the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City only shows small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are within the 100-year floodplain. In addition to TOP policies, the CMC, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. The City requires that all new structures in a special flood hazard area have elevations above the base flood elevation. Therefore, with implementation of existing policies, the potential to impede or redirect flood flows was considered less than significant (SEIR p. 5.10-25).

The Hydro Study concludes the proposed project will not increase the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm from the site and will not create a burden on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, with the implementation of an approved Water Quality Management Plan developed for the site, in compliance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requirements, stormwater runoff volume shall be reduced to below a level of significance.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or 3254
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report. EIR Exhibit 20 did show the runoff input and output through the proposed storm drain master plan for the project. The EIR recommended four (4) mitigation measures all addressing drainage/storm drain impacts (see CCCSP EIR Measures 31-34 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR indicates there are three major regional drainage channels that convey stormwater runoff from the City’s storm drain system—San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, and Day Creek Channel.

There are also several flood retentions and spreading basins in the City that are used to retain flood flows and recharge the Chino Groundwater Basin. Projects considered for approval under TOP would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies. The methodology for these studies is provided in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, which describes the approach for estimating stormwater runoff and peak flow rates, for the 100-year storm event (SEIR 5.10-26). In addition, TOP EIR stated TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation (SEIR p. 5.10-27).

The Hydro Report (Appendix F) demonstrates the project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or create or contribute stormwater runoff pollutants during construction and/or post-construction activity. The stormwater flows will enter existing storm pipes in Jurupa Street and other adjacent improved streets. Pursuant to the requirements of TOP, the City’s Development Code, and the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, individual developments must provide site drainage and PWQMP plans according to guidelines established by the City’s Engineering Department. As shown in Table 12, Project Runoff Volumes, the project will retain/detain a volume of water equal or greater than the DCV for the entire 196.8-acre property (906,544 v. 1,008,774 cubic feet, respectively) (TE 2022).

Table 12: Project Runoff Volumes
Building/
Drainage Area
SiteArea
(Acres)
Design Capture
Volume (DCV)
(cubic feet/second)
Retention/Detention
Volume Provided
(cubic feet/second)
1 23.59 113,360 113,818
2 40.64 247,903 248,234
3 25.37 69,399 69,445
4 11.74 48,362 48,540
5 19.47 86,568 86,816
6 20.58 90,195 90,530
7 9.71 42,559 42,723
8 24.08 112,442 112,574
9 21.65 95,757 96,094
Total 196.83 906,544 1,008,774
Source: Hydrology Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP), Thienes Engineering, October 2022a, b
The Hydro Study stated that if master drainage facilities are not in place at the time of project development, then standard engineering practices for controlling post-development runoff may be required, which could include the construction of on-site storm water detention and/or retention/infiltration facilities.

This is a temporary engineering contingency if a property were to develop prior to completion of all planned area-wide drainage facilities. However, the area-wide master plan of drainage facilities has already been installed. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project, but did not specifically address flooding other than storm drain concerns. A project 3255
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report.

TOP EIR states that the current FIRM for the City only shows small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are within the 100-year floodplain. In addition to TOP policies, the CMC, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. However, Figure S-03 of TOP indicates most of the project site is within the 500-year or 100-year flood plains, so there will be no flooding impacts relative to the 100-year flood zone. Impacts will be less than significant.

Urbanization in the areas surrounding the project site have resulted in increased responsiveness of the basin to rainfall. The increase in impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots has resulted in a decrease in groundwater infiltration and larger storm surges. The project site currently slopes southeast, and the existing drainage pattern is characterized by sheet flows that follow the slope to the northwest. The project site is not impacted by offsite flows. The project site is not located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Firm Panel designated Flood Zone Risk, and according to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) no wetlands or other ponding features exist on the property.

The project will lead to the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces such as parking areas and building foundation areas. The project site would discharge onsite flows into a combination of onsite infiltrations basins and an existing storm drain facility. As such, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. With adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulation, no changes to the existing flood flows would occur.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project, but did not specifically address pollutant release. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR did not present quantified data or analysis of impacts from that report.

Figure S-04 of TOP indicates the project site is not within the inundation zones of either the San Antonio Dam to the northwest or overflow of debris basins to the north. Due to its location and surrounding conditions, TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to flood hazards, tsunamis, seiches, or dam inundation (SEIR p. 5.10-27).

Impacts associated with flooding are primarily related to the construction or placement of structures in areas prone to flooding including within an unprotected 100-year flood zone, and in areas susceptible to high tides, tsunamis, seiches, mudflows or sea level rise. Specifically, structures placed in flood prone areas, if flooded, would be damaged, and could subject people to injury or death. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires the identification of floodplain areas and establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. FEMA administers the programs and coordinates with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. According to FEMA, the project is not located in a known floodplain as shown in Figure S-04 of TOP. Furthermore, this area is not known to flood and is not typically subjected to flooding. The project site is vacant and regularly maintained for weed abatement so it does not contain any vegetation associated with riparian features. No wetlands have been mapped on the project site according to the NWI. According to the FEMA, the project is not located in an area that is subject to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. The project site is located over 60 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not located in a mapped tsunami zone. Therefore, the project would not have a significant risk of flood hazard, tsunami, seiche zones, release of pollutants due to project inundation.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
3256
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.G of the CCC SP EIR evaluated hydrology and water-related impacts of the project, but did not specifically address water quality, permitting, or groundwater management. A project hydrology study was prepared, but the EIR presented no information on water quality or groundwater.

Section VI.O of the CCC SP EIR addresses water supply but does not discuss groundwater conditions or impacts. However, it does recommend two (2) mitigation measures to help protect local groundwater (see CCCSP EIR Measures 32 and 78 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to water quality or groundwater issues. The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. TOP EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to a conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (SEIR p. 5-10-27).

The Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of BMPs to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. The project would be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing TOP policies related to water quality would also be applicable to the project. Implementation of these policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that water quality impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

It should be noted the CCC SP EIR concluded the project would have impacts regarding hydrology and recommended four (4) mitigation measures most of which have since been superseded by regulatory compliance and standard City conditions of approval (see CCCSP EIR Measures 31-34 in column 1 of Table A.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.H of the CCC SP EIR examined land use impacts, but focused on compatibility with the General Plan, surrounding land uses, and noise compatibility with airport operations to the west. The EIR recommended eight (8) mitigation measures mainly related to airport noise impacts on the project rather than on project-related noise impacts on surrounding land uses (see CCCSP EIR Measures 37-44 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR concluded TOP policies would prevent conflicting land uses and would not divide any established communities. TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to physical division of an established community (SEIR p. 5.11-2). 3257
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The project site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses to the north, east, and south, including large warehouses and commercial uses. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion of Effects: Sections VI.A through VI.S in the CCC SP EIR evaluate the project relative to a number of land use planning documents and regulations, including the City General Plan (Land Use Compatibility, Section VI.H) and air quality management planning (Section VI.A), The EIR identified no significant impacts and no mitigation was recommended. However, the EIR also evaluated the project relative to the OIA and recommended three (3) mitigation measures all related to noise impacts from the airport (see CCCSP EIR Measures 38, 39, and 43 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR found that buildout of TOP would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including SCAG regional plans and policies and the land use compatibility plans for the OIA and the Chino Airport. The project site is just east of the OIA and within its safety and noise impact zones (SEIR p. 5.11-6).

TOP Figure LU-01 (Land Use Plan) indicates that industrial uses have a maximum FAR of 0.55 so the 196.9-acre site would be allowed up to 4,717,330 square feet of industrial uses under TOP. It should be noted the project proposes 9.2% less square footage than the maximum allowed under TOP (i.e., project is 90.8% of TOP maximum). The most recent amendment to the CCC SP was City Council Resolution No.018-126 which was adopted August 21, 2018 and changed the land use designations for the following eight (8) parcels 0211-222-55, 0211-232-45, 0211-232-46, 0211-232-16, 0211-232-17, 0211-232-18, 0211- 232-19, and 0211-232-20 on the project site from Commercial and Office to Light Industrial. The previous Table 1 shows the specific sizes of the nine proposed building on the proposed project site. The current Project plan is consistent with the land use designations for the site under the 2022 TOP.

TOP and existing laws and regulations will protect listed and otherwise sensitive biological species including the burrowing owl.

The proposed project does not interfere with any policies or plans established for environmental protection with implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program (BRP) for the relocation of burrowing owl consistent with CDFW protocols and a nesting bird survey to protect nesting birds per TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2. With implementation of these actions, impacts are less than significant.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not examine potential impacts to mineral resources from the project, although it may be because the City’s General Plan at that time did not identify any significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project site.

TOP EIR indicates there are two areas in Ontario that are designated Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) where significant mineral resources are known or are likely. The remainder of the City is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown.

Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s Production3258 CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Consumption maps (SEIR p. 5.12-6). The project site is not within the portions of the City designated as MRZ-2.

The project site is located within a developed area surrounded by urban land uses to the north, east, and south with OIA safety zones to the west. There are no known mineral resources in the area and the site is largely surrounded by developed urban uses. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not examine potential impacts to mineral resources from the project, although it may be because the City’s General Plan at that time did not identify any significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project site.

TOP EIR indicates there are two areas in Ontario that are designated Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) where significant mineral resources are known or are likely. The remainder of the City is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown.

Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s ProductionConsumption maps (SEIR p. 5.12-6). The project site is not within the portions of the City designated as MRZ-2. There are no known mineral resources in the area. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.B of the CCC SP EIR concluded future workers of the project would be impacted by airport noise including potential future expansion of OIA. The EIR did not make a specific conclusion regarding the significance of airport noise impacts but recommended three (3) mitigation measures to help limit impacts. However, the language of the measures was permissive rather than mandatory and all of them have since been incorporated into regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval by the City (see Table A for CCCSP EIR Measures 38, 39, and 43 in column 1).

TOP EIR found stationary and transportation noise impacts of future development under TOP to be less than significant with implementation of Safety Element Policy S-4.1, Noise Mitigation, which utilizes the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects (SEIR p. 5.13-32).

The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as supporting industrial uses and the project will not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in TOP EIR (Section 5.12). The project site is surrounded on the north, east, and south sides by industrial or commercial/office uses, and to the west by the OIA. The I-10 is just north of the site, the I-15 is just east of the site, and the site is within the OIA’s Safety Zones. The issue of the project’s consistency with the ALUCP is addressed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (airport-related hazards) and potential noise impacts are addressed in detail in Section 9.3e. As discussed therein various TOP Implementation Actions for noise which are recommended by the Mead & Hunt airport study (Appendix E) will be implemented by the project.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3259
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not evaluate potential impacts related to vibration in relation to the CCC SP project.

The project proposes industrial uses consistent with TOP Policy Plan and the CCC SP at approximately 10 percent less intensity than the maximum allowed under TOP. The site was previously analyzed by the TOP EIR as supporting industrial/warehouse uses. TOP EIR indicates these types of uses do not normally induce significant groundborne vibrations because they do not typically involve equipment or activities which result in large vibrations (e.g., blasting, impact compaction, handling of large boulders, etc.). Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or the noise impact zones of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT and Chino Airports, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR identified noise impacts and recommended four (4) mitigation measures mainly related to onsite architectural design to reduce impacts from airport noise on future project workers. These measures have been superseded by regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval (see CCCSP EIR Measures 38, 39, 41, and 43 in column 1 of Table A).

The Land Use Element of TOP states that all new developments surrounding OIA should be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and should meet standards and recommendations of Part 77 of the FAA, adopted through Ordinance 2758 in the Ontario Municipal Code. A consistency determination analysis for the OIA was prepared by the City and OIA found TOP to be consistent with the ALUCP. Therefore, TOP is consistent with the ALUCP because the general land use designations within the airport influence area are the same (SEIR p. 5.9-41) in both documents. The City’s OIA Liaison Planner has stated OIA has reviewed the proposed Development Plan and found the project to be consistent with the OIA ALUCP.

Therefore, the project is also consistent with the ALUCP because it is consistent with TOP land use designation for the site.

As discussed in Section 9.e above, the project will implement the TOP Implementation Actions for airport noise recommended in the Mead & Hunt Study (Appendix E). The project site lies outside the boundaries of the Chino Airport Influence Area. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.R of the CCC SP EIR addresses socio-economic factors including population and housing. The EIR did not identify any significant impacts or recommend any mitigation for these issues.

TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts associated with population and housing increases.

TOP allows the City to accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City (SEIR p. 5.14-11). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as industrial uses and the proposed project is consistent with the Industrial TOP designation and CCC SP land use plan.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
3260
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.R of the CCC SP EIR addresses socio-economic factors including population and housing. The EIR did not identify any significant impacts or recommend any mitigation for these issues.

The purpose of TOP is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth through the distribution, location, balance, and extent of land uses. Implementation of TOP 2050 would accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City.

The EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to displacement of people and housing (SEIR p. 5.14-12). The project site does not contain existing housing, nor is it designated or zoned for residential uses.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
c. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the CCC SP EIR addresses public services. The EIR indicates the project will increase the demand for fire protection, but there are a number of City and other fire stations in the area that can provide adequate service. Three (3) mitigation measures were recommended (see CCCSP EIR Measures 84-86 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR determined TOP would result in an increase in development and population, which would result in increased demand on fire protection services. The EIR indicated that existing facilities and services would not be adequate to meet increased demand from growth under TOP. Therefore, the Fire Department was planning on adding facilities and/or services as demand increases. With implementation of TOP policies and Fire Department review of new development, impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.15-3).

The project site is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Fire Department. The Project is consistent with TOP land use designations, and TOP EIR states the City will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities in this portion of the City.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Police protection?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the CCC SP EIR addresses public services. The EIR indicates the project will increase the demand for police service, and two (2) mitigation measures were recommended (see CCCSP EIR Measures 87-88 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR determined TOP would result in an increase in development and population, which would result in increased demand on police protection services. The EIR indicated that existing staffing would not be adequate to meet increased demand from growth under TOP. Therefore, the Police 3261
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Department is planning on adding facilities and/or services as demand increases. With implementation of TOP policies and Police Department review of new development, impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.15-7).

The site is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Police Department. The project will contribute to the incremental need for construction of any new police facilities or alteration of any existing facilities
or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No site specific mitigation is required.
iii. Schools?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the CCC SP EIR addresses public services but did not address schools.

TOP EIR identified impacts to school facilities and services as less than significant upon payment of SB 50 school impact fees (SEIR p. 5.15-14).

The project proposes industrial land uses which are non-residential and do not generate school-aged students that require educational facilities or services. The project will be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits, which is considered adequate mitigation under CEQA. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Parks?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the CCC SP EIR addresses public services but did not address parks.

TOP would generate additional residents, increasing the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, TOP EIR concluded this would not result in a significant impact as long as development of park facilities keeps pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout (SEIR p. 5-15-14).

The site is in a developed area currently served by the City. The project is industrial and not residential in nature so it will not require the construction of any new park facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. v. Other public facilities?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the 1981 CCC SP EIR identified impacts to public services, but did not specifically address other public facilities.

TOP would generate additional residents, increasing the use of existing public facilities (e.g., libraries). TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts to library services and facilities (SEIR p. 5-15- 18).

The site is in a developed area currently served by the City. Typically, new public facilities are needed to serve additional population generated by new housing. The project will not generate any new 3262
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

housing so it will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the 1981 CCC SP EIR identified impacts to public services, but did not specifically address parks or recreation.

TOP would generate additional residents, increasing the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, TOP EIR concluded this would not result in a significant impact as long as development of park facilities keeps pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout (SEIR p. 5-16-14).

This project is not proposing any new housing that would cause a significant increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.Q of the 1981 CCC SP EIR identified impacts to public services but did not specifically address parks or recreation.

TOP would generate additional residents, increasing the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, TOP EIR concluded this would not result in a significant impact as long as development of park facilities keeps pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout (SEIR p. 5-16-14).

This project is not proposing any new housing that would require the construction of new or expanded neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.L of the CCC SP EIR identified traffic impacts and recommended sixteen (16) mitigation measures, however, the analysis focused on Level of Service (LOS) or road/intersection congestion. The CCC SP EIR stated the project could generate almost 30,000 new employees in the City and the project could generate approximately 157,100 daily vehicle trips with impacts at 14 local intersections. The EIR recommended mitigation measures mainly included improvements at various local intersections and roadways to lessen vehicular congestion.

TOP EIR found that the recommended TOP circulation plan would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal (SEIR p. 5.17-23) so impacts would be less than significant.
3263
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as supporting industrial uses and is surrounded on the north, east, and south by industrial uses and on the west by the OIA. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. A complete Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads in January 2022. The TIA was based on 642,368 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (15%) and 3,640,082 square feet of highcube fulfillment center warehouse use (85%) with a total building area of 4,282,450 square feet. The TIA indicated the project would generate a total of 7,980 vehicle trips per day with 613 AM peak hour trips and 644 PM peak hour trips, as shown in Table 13, Project Trip Generation. The TIA also estimated Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) traffic based on the various trucks that would serve the project. The PCE trip generation of the project (9,646 trips) is also shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Project Trip Generation
Trip Characteristic
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total
In Out Total In Out Total Trips
Actual Vehicles 463 102 613 250 394 644 7,980
Passenger Car
Equivalents (PCE) 527 230 756 301 441 742 9,646
Source: Tables 4-2 & 4-3, UC 2022. ITE Land Use Code 155 (high cube warehousing) ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th edition, 2021)
The project proposes 8.2% less overall square footage than could be built under TOP and the CCC SP.

The project would thus generate approximately 8.2% less traffic compared to what would be allowed under TOP. Therefore, the project would not have any greater traffic-related impacts on streets and intersections than were already analyzed in TOP EIR.

Transit. The project area and the City are served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions in San Bernardino County. Omnitrans currently operates Route 81 adjacent to the site on Haven Avenue. There are existing bus stops located near Haven Avenue at Airport Drive and Jurupa Street, near Milliken Avenue at Santa Ana Street, Lowell Street, and Jurupa Street. Omnitrans regularly reviews and periodically changes routes, stops, etc. to address ridership and community demand needs as well as budget limitations. As part of the City’s development review process, the project developer will coordinate with Omnitrans regarding expanded or additional bus service in the project area as needed.

Bicycles. The project site and surrounding area support mainly industrial with some commercial uses, and none of the adjacent streets, regardless of width, currently contain any bicycle lanes. The City’s TOP 2050 Trails and Bikeway Systems Map (Figure M-02) shows Haven Avenue west of the site, Airport Drive north of the site, and Jurupa Street south of the site designated as needing study for possible future bike lanes. However, no bicycle lanes are currently planned in the surrounding area due to its anticipated industrial nature.

Sidewalks/Trails. The project site is vacant and the internal streets have no sidewalks at present, although there are sidewalks on both sides of S. Commerce Parkway and E. Jurupa Street. Eventually, as project sites develop, sidewalks will be installed according to the City’s adopted cross street section requirements. The City’sTOP 2050 Trails and Bikeway Systems Map shows no trails or other pedestrianoriented improvements are planned on the project site or in the surrounding area (i.e., half a mile radius).

The project will be developed consistent with the City’s adopted plans for non-vehicular improvements as indicated in TOP. The project will install sidewalks on perimeter streets as indicated in the standard City street cross sections, and will install bus stop infrastructure if so directed by Omnitrans during the development review process. The project area is not planned for bicycle lanes or trails due to its industrial nature. Therefore, the project will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts will be less than significant.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 3264
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Discussion of Effects: In 1981, when the CCC SP EIR was prepared VMT was not identified as an environmental issue under CEQA so the CCC SP EIR did not evaluate VMT.

TOP EIR concludes TOP would result in a significant transportation impact related to VMT mainly due to the increase in population accommodated by TOP. TOP includes goals and policies to offset VMT impacts by creating greater access to transit and enhanced alternative transportation modes. In addition, projects that are calculated to exceed City-wide VMT levels must develop mitigation plans.

The City uses the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, which allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects identified in the City Guidelines. A projectspecific VMT analysis was prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads in December of 2021 based on the adopted City Guidelines (Appendix D-1).

The City Guidelines state that certain projects that meet the following VMT screening criteria may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project needs to meet only one of these screening criteria to have a less than significant impact.

TPA Screening. Projects located within a TPA (i.e., within a half-mile of an existing “major transit stop”3 or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”4 may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The Screening Tool indicates the project site is not located within a half-mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the TPA screening criteria is not met.

Low VMT Area Screening. As noted in the Technical Advisory, “Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT and that incorporate similar features (density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.” The City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that generates a VMT per service population (SP) that is 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per SP. The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual TAZ’s within the region. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number is selected in the Screening Tool to determine the TAZ in which the Project will reside. The Project’s TAZs VMT per service population was compared to 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per SP. The Screening Tool was run for production-attraction (PA) VMT per service population and it was determined that, the project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the low VMT area screening criteria is not met.

Project Type Screening. The City Guidelines indicate that local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. The Project TIA estimated vehicle trips generated by the project’s proposed land uses based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. According to the TIA, the project will generate 7,980 daily vehicle trip-ends per day. Therefore, the project generates daily vehicle trips exceeding the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold and the project type screening threshold is not met.

Based on this analysis, the project is not eligible for screening and a detailed VMT analysis has been performed.
3 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 3265
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

VMT Modeling. The City Guidelines identify SBTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City, as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data, such as population, households, and employment. The calculation of VMT for land use projects is based on the total number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle.

SBTAM is also consistent with the model used to develop the City’s VMT impact thresholds listed by the City Guidelines. Therefore, the vehicle trips and average daily trip length for project-related vehicle trips are model derived from SBTAM.

City VMT Threshold. The City Guidelines require the use of the VMT per Service Population metric as the appropriate measure in a VMT analysis. The City Guidelines state that “a significant impact would occur if the project VMT per Service Population exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions.” The SBCTA provides VMT calculations for each of its member agencies, including the City’s average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions. Urban Crossroads has obtained this published data from SBCTA, which for the City’s General Plan Buildout is

36.2 VMT per SP.

Project Modeling. In order to evaluate project VMT, standard land use information must first be converted into a SBTAM compatible dataset. The SBTAM model utilizes socio-economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Project land use information such as building square footage must first be converted to SED for input into SBTAM. Adjustments in SED have been made to the appropriate TAZ within the SBTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., warehouse). The project would have approximately 3,585 employees at buildout based on the employment density factors identified in the SCAG Employment Density Study (Table II-B, SCAG October 2001).

Project Impacts. Adjustments to employment for the project’s TAZ were made to both the SBTAM baseline year (2016) and cumulative year (2040) traffic models. The ability to capture all trips by all trip purposes can be achieved with the SBTAM model by using the Origin-Destination (OD) trip matrices. Using these OD trip matrices, the project generated total VMT was calculated utilizing straight-line interpolation for the baseline (2021) conditions. The total VMT for all scenarios is then normalized by dividing by the project’s service population (SP) (e.g., employees). As shown in Table 14, Project VMT Impacts, the project Baseline VMT per SP is 32.96 and the project Cumulative VMT per SP is 33.60.

Table 14: Project VMT Impacts
VMT Value Base Year (2016) Cumulative Year (2040) Baseline (2021) Employment1 3,585 3,585 3,585
VMT 117,069 120,453 118,156
VMT / SP 32.66 33.60 32.96
Impact Threshold
Percent Change
Potentially Significant?
(i.e., Project Exceeds Threshold)

36.2 -7.18%
No

36.2 -8.95%
No
Source: Tables 2 and 3, Urban Crossroads, December 2021 1 Since the Project does not have a residential component, the service population consists entirely of employment.

Table 14 compares project-generated VMT per SP in the Baseline and Cumulative Conditions to the City’s future Buildout VMT per SP. Table 14 demonstrates that the project would not exceed the City’s threshold for either the Baseline or Cumulative project conditions.5 Therefore, project VMT impacts with respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) are less than significant. 5 The City Guidelines state that cumulative impacts on VMT “… metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential 3266
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Moreover, the project is consistent with TOP’s underlying land use assumptions and the project is also considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact as well.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.L of the CCC SP EIR identified traffic impacts and recommended 28 mitigation measures. At that time, the analysis focused on LOS or road/intersection congestion, but some of the measures addressed unsafe operating conditions mainly due to anticipated intersection congestion from project traffic and transit-related issues. These measures are addressed in CCCSP EIR Measures 7-13, 26-30, and 52-67 in column 1 of Table A.

TOP EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended TOP circulation plan would be designed to adequately address potential hazardous conditions and potential conflicting uses (SEIR p.

5.17-26) so impacts would be less than significant.

The project is largely surrounded by existing industrial and commercial development and the area is fully improved where adjacent to existing developed uses. All internal streets will be improved with project construction. Most of the roads on or adjacent to the site are or will be linear or curvilinear according to the City’s Circulation Element master plan of streets in terms of alignment and cross section. Therefore, the project will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.L of the CCC SP EIR identified traffic impacts and recommended sixteen (16) mitigation measures, however, the analysis did not address emergency access.

TOP EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended TOP circulation plan would be designed to adequately address emergency access (SEIR p. 5.17-26) so impacts would be less than significant.

As shown in Exhibit 2, the project will have standard street alignments and cross sections, which can provide access for all emergency vehicles and will therefore not result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for GHG emissions, air quality impacts, and impact that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.”
3267
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

a.Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: At the time the CCC SP EIR was prepared, the State CEQA Guidelines did not require an evaluation of TCRs. However, Section VI. C of the CCC SP EIR indicated the region had long been inhabited by Native American tribes. A cultural survey of the site found no archaeological or other cultural resources. One (1) mitigation measure was recommended to reduce impacts to archaeological resources (see CCCSP EIR Measure 17 in column 1 of Table A).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as supporting industrial uses and is not listed in the California Register of Historic Resources or local register of historical resources. TOP EIR concluded that with recommended mitigation potential impacts to TCRs were reduced to less than significant levels.

Developing warehouses consistent with TOP and current zoning will not create greater impacts than were identified in TOP EIR. In addition, the SLF Search (commissioned through the NAHC) failed to indicate known TCRs within the project boundaries or within a one-mile radius of the project area.

The project site has been previously disturbed by human activities including agricultural use from the 1940’s through the 1960’s. The surrounding area is largely developed and supports infrastructure that would have displaced surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, it is not anticipated the proposed project will impact TCRs or Native American artifacts relating to TCRs. However, to err on the side of caution, the City will apply its standard conditions of approval for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and require the developer enter into monitoring agreements with interested tribal groups. With this regulatory compliance, no significant impacts will occur.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional project specific mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure CUL 5-2 from TOP EIR shall be implemented.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion of Effects: At the time the CCC SP EIR was prepared, the State CEQA Guidelines did not require an evaluation of TCRs. However, Section VI. C of the CCC SP EIR indicated the region had long been inhabited by Native American tribes. A cultural survey of the site found no archaeological or other cultural resources on the site. One (1) mitigation measure was recommended to reduce impacts to archaeological resources (see Table A for CCCSP EIR Measure 17 in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR (Section 5.5) indicates no archeological sites or resources have been recorded in the City with the Archeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum so there were no significant impacts. The CRAs prepared for the project site included a pedestrian survey, a record search, a SLF search, and a review of existing documentation for the project site and surrounding area. The NAHC was contacted for a SLF search on April 1, 2019, and a response was received on April 15, 2019, indicating the project site contained no identified archaeological or tribal resources.

While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its disturbed nature, the project will implement the TOP Implementation Actions for cultural resources outlined in the Project Description of this document to help assure there will be no impacts to any unknown TCRs which may be present onsite.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The project will implement TOP Mitigation Measure CUL 502.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
3268
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.N of the CCC SP EIR addresses wastewater and provides information about local sewers. Two (2) mitigation measures are recommended (see CCCSP EIR Measures 74-75 in column 1 of Table A).

Section VI.P of the CCC SP EIR addresses public utilities including electricity, natural gas, telephone, and solid waste disposal. The EIR discusses connection plans but did not evaluate impacts from incremental increased use of the utilities. The EIR recommended five (5) mitigation measures (see CCCSP EIR Measures 74-78 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR stated TOP would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwelling units and non-residential square footage. To accommodate needed infrastructure expansion and improvements, the City has prepared a Water Master Plan (WMP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City also requires development impact fees and has construction requirements based on a completed evaluation of existing and projected water demands. The City and the Inland Empire Utility Authority (IEUA) have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. TOP EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to water supply and delivery systems (SEIR p.

5.19-31).

The project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the site, and the project is thus consistent with the WMP. In addition, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project consistent with SB 600 which concluded there were adequate water supplies, including under drought conditions, to serve buildout of the project. Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies to serve the project over the 20-year life of the WMP and WSA, including during multiple dry-year scenarios.

The proposed project is served by the City water system and has existing water lines available for connection in Jurupa Street and adequate water supply for the project. The proposed project is served by the City sewer system, which has existing sewer lines available for connection off Jurupa Street. The project’s waste will be treated by the IEUA at the RP-1 treatment plant. RP-1 is not at capacity and future development of this project site will not cause RP-1 to exceed capacity. TOP EIR indicates increases in RP capacity in the future will be based on designated TOP land uses, and the Project is consistent with those designations. The project will therefore not require the construction of new unanticipated water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities other than that already identified in TOP and TOP EIR. It should be noted the City does not provide will serve letters as it is both the land use authority and the water purveyor. Water and sewer service for development projects typically require the owner to complete requirements it specifies to provide adequate utility services. As the project goes through the City’s development review process, the City will issue conditions of approval that will specify the developer’s obligations in order to receive water and sewer service from the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

TOP EIR stated TOP has the potential to increase sewer flows by 2.55 million gallons per day (mgd) within the City and by 166 mgd in the City’s growth areas. TOP EIR concluded TOP would generate additional wastewater which would be adequately treated in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB and California Department of Public Health requirements (SEIR p. 5.19-11).

The proposed project is served by the City with existing storm drains located in Jurupa Street and other adjacent streets depending on the specific future building. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Ontario Engineering Department regarding the size, location, and connectivity of storm drain facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

As discussed in Section 6 above, the project will have less than significant impacts with regard to electric power and natural gas. In addition, telecommunication providers increase service and facilities as necessary as area population and land uses expand. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on telecommunications facilities.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
3269
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221).

Discussion of Effects: Section VI.O of the CCC SP EIR addresses water supply. The EIR evaluates overall water consumption compared to the Water Master Plan Report. The EIR recommended four (4) mitigation measures regarding water and sewer systems not contaminating drinking water supplies (see CCCSP EIR Measures 74-78 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR stated TOP would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwelling units and non-residential square footage. To accommodate needed infrastructure expansion and improvements, the City has prepared a WMP and CIP. The City also requires development impact fees and has construction requirements based on a completed evaluation of existing and projected water demands. The City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. TOP EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to water supply and delivery systems (SEIR p. 5.19-31).

The project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for site, and the project is thus consistent with the WMP. In addition, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project consistent with SB 600 which concluded there were adequate water supplies, including under drought conditions, to serve buildout of the project. Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies to serve the project over the 20-year life of the WMP and the WSA, including during multiple dry-year scenarios.

The project site is served by the City water system. It is estimated the project will generate between 3,585 and 4,597 employees6 who would consume between 537,750 and 689,550 gallons of water7 per day (maximum 772 acre-feet per year) based on 150 gallons per person per day. Since the project site land uses are consistent with the TOP, there is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City to serve this project as per the findings of the TOP EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.N of the CCC SP EIR addresses wastewater and provides information about the local sewer system. One (1) mitigation measure is recommended to have a complete onsite sewer that meets all regulatory requirements (see CCCSP EIR Measure 74 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR stated TOP has the potential to increase sewer flows by 2.55 million gallons per day (mgd) within the City and by 166 mgd in the City’s growth areas. TOP EIR concluded TOP would generate additional wastewater which would be adequately treated in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB and California Department of Public Health requirements (SEIR p. 5.19-11).

It is estimated the project will generate between 3,585 and 4,597 employees8 who would generate between 268,875 and 344,775 gallons of wastewater9 per day (maximum 0.34 million gallons per day or MGD) based on 75 gallons per person per day, The project site is served by the City sewer system, which 6 SCAG employee density data indicates the Project could generate 3,585 employees while the Airport Land Use Consistency Plan data indicates the Project could generate up to 4,597 employees. 7 3,585 employees X 150 gallons/day = 537,750 gallons per day and 4,597 employees X 150 gallons/day = 689,550 gallons 8 SCAG employee density data indicates the Project could generate 3,585 employees while the Airport Land Use Consistency Plan data indicates the Project could generate up to 4,597 employees. 9 3,585 employees X 75 gallons/day = 268,875 gallons per day and 4,597 employees X 75 gallons/day = 344,775 gallons 3270
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

has waste treated by the IEUA at the RP-1 treatment plant. RP-1 is not at capacity and future development of this project site will not cause RP-1 to exceed capacity. In addition, the project site land uses are consistent with TOP and its EIR. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No proiect specific mitigation is required. b. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.P of the CCC SP EIR addresses utilities including solid waste disposal. The capacity of Milliken Landfill is described, but no information on solid waste regulations or an estimate of additional solid waste generated by the project was provided. No mitigation was proposed.

TOP EIR indicated the City disposes of its solid waste in the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or the El Sobrante Landfill. These landfills currently have a combined excess daily capacity of 7,046 tons/day and have a remaining landfill capacity of 15,750,000 cubic yards for Badlands Sanitary Landfill and 144,000,000 cubic yards for El Sobrante Landfill. Both landfills have closure dates beyond 2050. In addition, state and local regulations and ordinances regarding the recycling of construction debris and organic wastes will further reduce the amount of solid waste transported to these landfills in the future. Therefore, TOP EIR concluded that potential impacts were less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations (SEIR p. 5.19-14).

It is estimated the project will generate between 3,585 and 4,597 employees7 who would generate between 12,189 and 15,630 pounds of waste10 per day (maximum 7.8 tons per day) based on 3.4 pounds per person per day. Currently, the City contracts with a waste disposal company that transports trash to a landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City’s solid waste disposal. No impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation required.
b. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR identified generalized impacts to utilities including solid waste but did not recommend any specific mitigation measures (see CCCSP EIR Measure 83 in column 1 of Table A).

TOP EIR indicated that potential impacts related to solid waste reduction would be less than significant based on compliance with state and local regulations and ordinances regarding the recycling of construction debris and organic wastes will reduce the amount of solid waste transported to the two landfills serving the City in the future. Therefore, continued compliance with the applicable regulations, would ensure future development under TOP would have less than significant impacts (SEIR p. 5.19-16).

City development review regulations will require this project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding solid waste. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 10 3,585 employees X 3.4 pounds/day = 12,189 pounds per day and 4,597 employees X 3.4 pounds/day = 15,630 pounds/day 3271
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Discussion of Effects: When the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981, wildfire-related issues were not part of the State CEQA Checklist so the issue was not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

TOP EIR found that improvements under the recommended TOP circulation plan would be designed to adequately address emergency access. In addition, emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process for new development. According to the City’s 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Figure S-10 of the TOP indicates that Haven Avenue to the west, Airport Drive to the north, and Jurupa Street to the south are designated evacuation routes in the City. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (SEIR p. 5.20-15 and p. 5.17-26).

The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area, nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Discussion of Effects: When the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981, the following wildfire-related issues were not part of the State CEQA Checklist so the issue was not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

TOP EIR indicated the City is outside of the State Responsibility Area, and contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. Therefore, the EIR concluded TOP would result in less-than-significant risks from wildfire hazards (SEIR p. 5.20-16).

The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Discussion of Effects: When the CCC SP EIR was prepared in 1981, wildfire-related issues were not part of the State CEQA Checklist so the issue was not addressed in the CCC SP EIR.

TOP EIR indicated the City is outside of the State Responsibility Area, and CAL FIRE and contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. Therefore, the EIR concluded TOP would result in less-thansignificant risks from wildfire hazards (SEIR p. 5.20-16). In addition, the project is in an urbanized area surrounded by developed industrial buildings so no improvements for preventing wildfires are needed either on or adjacent to the site.

The project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 3272
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not evaluate wildfire risks because at that time it was not identified as a specific environmental issue in the State CEQA Checklist.

TOP EIR indicated the City is outside of the State Responsibility Area, and CAL FIRE and contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. Therefore, the EIR concluded TOP would result in less-thansignificant risks from wildfire hazards (SEIR p. 5.20-16). In addition, the project site and surrounding area are flat so there is little risk from flooding or landslides.

The project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did examine potential impacts to biological resources (Section VI.D) and cultural resources (Section VI.C). The EIR indicated the site was vacant and did not support any listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals at the time it was prepared in 1981.

The EIR did not make a firm conclusion if the project would have significant impact on any biological resources, but it did recommend three (3) “permissive” mitigation measures (i.e., actions suggested but not required) which are outlined in Table A. Section VI. C of the CCC SP EIR indicated the region had been inhabited by Native American tribes, but a cultural survey of the site found no archaeological or other cultural resources on the site. One (1) mitigation measure was recommended to reduce impacts.

TOP EIR evaluated the potential impacts of future development under TOP and determined impacts related to biological or cultural resources could be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing a number of mitigation measures on sites that contain such resources.

The proposed project does not have the potential to reduce wildlife habitat and threaten a wildlife species with implementation of the recommended Burrowing Owl Relocation Program (BRP) to protect burrowing owl and a nesting bird survey to protect nesting birds to comply with TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2. It will also not threaten any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. In addition, the project will document removal of the historic age well onsite. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project-specific mitigation is required. The project shall implement a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program and a nesting bird survey, as well as documentation of the onsite historic age well. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Discussion of Effects: Section VII of the CCC SP EIR addresses this issue and outlines the potential impacts of the project relative to various environmental issues as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines at that time. Each analysis section (VI.A through VI.S) also identifies potential short- or long-term impacts but does not address achieving either short- or long-term environmental goals.

The analysis in TOP EIR, as outlined in Sections 1 through 20 of this document, indicate TOP is intended to achieve both the short- and long-term goals of the City in terms of the environment. 3273
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals with implementation of the recommended burrowing owl relocation program and the nesting bird survey to comply with TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Discussion of Effects: Section IX of the CCC SP EIR addresses potential cumulative impacts of the project. The EIR concluded the project would have cumulative air quality impacts, and all other impacts were either less than significant or could be reduced to less than significant levels by the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

TOP EIR concluded that all impacts of TOP could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures except for air quality, historical resources, noise, and transportation. The EIR further concluded TOP would not make a significant contribution to any cumulatively considerable impacts with the recommended mitigation except for air quality.

The project does not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable other than operational VOC and NOx emissions because those impacts exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds even with mitigation.

However, TOP EIR already examined this impact and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the cumulative air quality impacts of future development under TOP. Since the proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designations for the site, the potential air quality impacts of the project have been previously evaluated in TOP EIR and appropriate mitigation applied (i.e., TOP EIR MM AQ 3-1 through 3-3).

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The project shall implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AW 3-1 through 3-3.
d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Effects: Sections VI.A through VI.S of the CCC SP EIR evaluate the various potential impacts of the project, including air quality (VI.A), airport hazards (VI.B), noise (VI.I). The EIR concluded only air quality impacts, in terms of air pollutant emissions and consistency with air quality planning, would remain at significant levels even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.

TOP EIR concluded that all impacts of TOP could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures except for air quality, historical resources, noise, and transportation. The air quality and noise impacts may have direct and/or indirect adverse effects on humans as development occurs in the City under TOP.

With implementation of the recommended TOP Mitigation Measures, compliance with existing laws, plans and regulations, and the various TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the Project Description, the project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 3274
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

EARLIER ANALYSES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)):
a) California Commerce Center Specific Plan EIR No. 81-04. ESA 1981 b) The Ontario Plan Final EIR 2022
c) The Ontario Plan 2022
d) City of Ontario Zoning 2021 as amended
e) California Commerce Center Specific Plan Amendment (PSPA18-005) and TOP EIR Addendum, Ontario City Council, August 21, 2018
f) Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 2018 g) Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Negative Declaration (SCH 2011011081) All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
3275
14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
March 15, 2022
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
1140 N. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS CENTER AIR QUALITY & ENERGY ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM Dear Mr. Bruce McDonald:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality & Energy Assessment Memorandum for the California Logistics Center Project (“Project”), which is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, as shown on Exhibit A.

Specifically, the following assessment has been prepared in support of the proposed Project CEQA Addendum to determine whether the proposed Project would result in new or substantially different air quality or energy impacts than those considered and addressed in the Ontario Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2008101140 (referred to as “DEIR”) dated April 2009.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The DEIR evaluated the development of 87,620 residential dwelling units (du)1, 40,356,075 square feet (sf) of mixed-use, 34,934,684 sf of retail/service uses, 22,116,283 sf of business park use, 159,998,711 sf of industrial use, 257,405,754 sf of other uses2 within the area bounded by the proposed Project.

The Project intends to develop 9 industrial warehouse buildings totaling of 4,282,450 square feet (SF). (See Attachment A)
It should be noted that, for the purposes of trip generation evaluation contained within this VMT analysis, the following mix of land uses are proposed to be evaluated for the Project:
• 642,368 sf of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (15% of the total square footage) • 3,640,082 sf of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use (85% of the total square footage) • Total of 4,282,450 sf
1 Residential uses Include 535 du of rural residential use, 32,766 du of low density residential us, 27,207 du of low-medium density residential use, 138,601 du of medium density residential use, and 27,892 du of high-density residential use. 2 Other uses include open space – non-recreation, open space – recreation, open space – water, public facility, public school, Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport, landfill, railroad, and roadways. 3276
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
EXHIBIT A: LOCATION MAP
3277
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN
3278
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

DEIR MITIGATION MEASURES
The DEIR included the following mitigation measures. The proposed Project is required to implement the following mitigation measures as follows.

AQ 3-1: The City of Ontario Building Department shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include. • Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
o Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits. o Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
o Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
o Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

AQ 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

AQ-3-3: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). New development that is inconsistent with the recommended buffer distances shall only be approved if feasible mitigation measures, such as high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value filters have been incorporated into the project design to protect future sensitive receptors from harmful concentrations of air pollutants as a result of proximity to existing air pollution sources.

CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT EMISSIONS
As previously stated, the DEIR evaluated the development of 87,620 residential du, 40,356,075 sf of mixed-use, 34,934,684 sf of retail/service uses, 22,116,283 sf of business park use, 159,998,711 sf of industrial use, 257,405,754 sf of other uses within the area bounded by the 3279
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
proposed Project. Table 1 summarize the operational air quality emissions that would result from the currently approved land uses bounded by the proposed Project.

TABLE 1: CURRENTLY APPROVED MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Transportation Source 29,625 27,819 111,058 582 4,557 4,512 Area Source 23,781 3,548 46,604 127 7,019 6,757
Maximum Daily Emissions 53,406 31,367 157,662 709 11,576 11,269 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES YES YES YES

PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS

AIR QUALITY

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized on Table 2. As shown, the proposed Project’s construction-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation beyond the required mitigation from the DEIR would be required.

TABLE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.40 84.48 189.09 0.64 56.07 16.50 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

PROJECT-RELATED RECEPTORS
Receptors in the Project study area are described below and shown on Exhibit C. Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive 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. The selection of receptor locations is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and is 3280
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

R1: Location R1 represents the existing residence at 3141 Inland Empire Boulevard. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the residential building façade.

R2: Location R2 represents the Embassy Suites by Hilton Ontario Airport hotel at 3663 East Guasti Road. Receptor R2 is placed at the building façade.

R3: Location R3 represents the Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall hotel. Receptor R3 is placed at the building façade.

R4: Location R4 represents the Ontario Airport Car Rental facility located at Rental Car Road.

Receptor R4 is placed at the building façade.

R5: Location R5 represents the Biagi Brothers Transportation facility at 3655 East Airport Drive. Receptor R5 is placed at the building façade.

R6: Location R6 represents the westernmost building of the Timberland distribution center at 3950 East Airport Drive. Receptor R6 is placed at the building façade.

R7: Location R7 represents the easternmost building of the Timberland distribution center at 3950 East Airport Drive. Receptor R7 is placed at the building façade.

R8: Location R8 represents the Cubework coworking space building located at 1001 Doubleday Avenue. Receptor R8 is placed at the building façade.

R9: Location R9 represents the EaZy BrandZ store located at 4060 East Jurupa Street.

Receptor R9 is placed at the building façade.

R10: Location R10 represents the Haliburton International Foods, Inc. food products supplier facility located at 3855 East Jurupa Street. Receptor R10 is placed at the building façade.

R11: Location R11 represents the Pacific Coast Warehouse facility located at 3601 East Jurupa Street. Receptor R11 is placed at the building façade.
3281
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
EXHIBIT 3-A: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
3282
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
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 PM10 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 of PM10 and PM2.5 relative to each building area is identified in Table 3.

TABLE 3: NEAREST RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR EVALUATION OF LOCALIZED PM10 AND PM2.5 Building Area Nearest
Receptor Distance (feet) Distance (meters)
Building 1 R1 3,962 1,208
Building 2 R2 1,431 436
Building 3 R2 4,042 1,232
Building 4 R2 5,008 1,526
Building 5 R2 2,136 651
Building 6 R3 3,478 1,060
Building 7 R3 2,420 738
Building 8 R3 3,272 997
Budling 9 R3 5,161 1,573
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 NOX 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 COrelative to each building area is identified in Table 4.

TABLE 4: NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR LOCALIZED NOX AND CO (1 OF 2) Building Area Nearest
Receptor Distance (feet) Distance (meters)
Building 1 R4 195 59
Building 2 R5 172 52
Building 3 R11 85 26
Building 4 R11 106 32
Building 5 R6 126 38
Building 6 R10 116 35
3283
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 4: NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR LOCALIZED NOX AND CO (2 OF 2) Building Area Nearest
Receptor Distance (feet) Distance (meters)
Building 7 R7 70 21
Building 8 R8 104 32
Budling 9 R9 73 22
It should be noted that the look-up tables only identify thresholds up to a 500-meter distance. As a conservative measure, a 500-meter distance will be used in lieu of distances over 500 meters.

Additionally, 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 (39).” As such a 25-meter receptor distance will be used for evaluation of localized PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO.

Pursuant to MM AQ 3-1 of the DEIR, the following analysis is presented to determine if the proposed Project would be required to implement any limitations on grading activity to prevent localized impacts to nearby receptors. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (1). 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
3 . LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a
project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. Table 5 includes a summary of the Project’s construction localized emissions compared to the applicable thresholds. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. Without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant
3 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution 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.” 3284
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY (1 OF 3) Construction Phase Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
Building 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.97 3.48 2.99 1.22
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 317 3,376 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 2
Maximum Daily Emissions 13.71 5.99 5.14 2.10
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 306 3,376 283 143
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 3
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.54 3.73 3.20 1.30
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 271 2,224 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 4
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.96 1.73 1.48 0.61
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 5
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.57 2.87 2.46 1.00
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 287 2,601 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 6
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.94 3.03 2.60 1.06
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 283 2,507 52 137
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 7
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.27 1.43 1.23 0.50
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
3285
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY (2 OF 3) Construction Phase Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
Building 8
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.12 3.55 3.04 1.24
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 9
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.30 3.19 2.74 1.12
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Building 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.22 5.35 2.14 0.75
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 317 3,376 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 2
Maximum Daily Emissions 14.14 9.20 3.67 1.29
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 306 3,376 283 143
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 3
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.80 5.73 2.29 0.80
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 271 2,224 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 4
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.08 2.66 1.06 0.37
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 5
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.77 4.40 1.76 0.62
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 287 2,601 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
3286
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY (3 OF 3) Construction Phase Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading
Building 6
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.15 4.65 1.86 0.65
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 283 2,507 52 137
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 7
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.37 2.19 0.88 0.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 8
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.37 5.45 2.18 0.76
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 9
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.52 4.89 1.95 0.68
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 322 170
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Regional operational emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized on Table 6. As shown, during operational activity, Project emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC and NOX. The VOC and NOx exceedances that would occur under the proposed Project are considered and addressed within the DEIR.

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Localized operational emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized on Table 7. As shown, the proposed Project’s localized operational-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation beyond the required mitigation from the DEIR would be required. 3287
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 6: PROJECT OPERATIONAL MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Transportation Source 28.65 200.90 314.75 1.47 104.22 29.84 Area Source 100.05 23.79 22.55 0.12 1.33 1.29
Maximum Daily Emissions 128.70 224.69 337.30 1.59 105.55 31.13 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES NO NO NO NO
TABLE 7: PROJECT OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS SUMMARY (1 OF 2) Maximum On-Site Operational Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Building 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.06 4.60 0.79 0.33
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 317 3,376 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 2
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.99 7.91 1.35 0.57
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 306 3,066 69 35
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 3
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.35 4.92 0.84 0.36
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 271 2,224 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 4
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.02 2.28 0.39 0.17
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 5
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.35 3.79 0.65 0.27
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 287 2,601 78 41
3288
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
TABLE 7: PROJECT OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS SUMMARY (2 OF 2) Maximum On-Site Operational Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Building 6
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.54 4.00 0.68 0.29
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 283 2,507 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 7
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.67 1.89 0.32 0.14
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 8
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.14 4.69 0.80 0.34
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 279 2,413 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Building 9
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.72 4.21 0.72 0.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 71 36
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS COMPARISON
Table 8 compares air quality associated with the Currently Approved Project to the proposed Project.

As shown, emissions would result in a decrease of air quality emissions associated with the Project.

Notwithstanding, the Project would not result in new or substantively different or substantively increased air quality impacts previously disclosed in the DEIR.

TABLE 8: AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS COMPARISON
Project
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Currently Approved Project 53,406 31,367 157,662 709 11,576 11,269 3289
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
Proposed Project 128.70 224.69 337.30 1.59 105.55 31.13 Variance -53,277.30 -31,142.31 -157,324.70 -707.41 -11,470.45 -11,237.87

ENERGY ANALYSIS

CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS
Based on the 2022 National Construction Estimator (2), the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.41. Table 9 estimates the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed Project to be approximately $826,764.29.

TABLE 9: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER COST
Land Use Power Cost
(per 1,000 SF)
Size
(1,000 SF)
Construction
Duration
(months)
Project
Construction
Power Cost
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse $2.41 642.368 40 $61,924.23 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse $2.41 3,640.083 40 $350,903.95 Parking $2.41 1,054.353 40 $101,639.63
Landscape $2.41 1,063.403 40 $102,512.05
Other Asphalt Surfaces $2.41 2,176.187 40 $209,784.43
CONSTRUCTION POWER COST $826,764.29

CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
The SCE’s general service rate schedule were used to determine the Project’s electrical usage. As of January 1, 2022, Southern California Edison’s (SCE) general service rate is $0.13 per kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity for commercial uses and $0.13 per kWh of electricity for street and area lighting (3), the total electricity usage from on-site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 6,276,680 kWh.

TABLE 10: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
Land Use Cost per kWh
Project
Construction
Electricity Usage
(kWh)
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse $0.13 470,120
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse $0.13 2,664,014
Parking $0.13 771,634
3290
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
Landscape $0.13 778,257
Other Asphalt Surfaces $0.13 1,592,654
CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE 6,276,680

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL CONSUMPTION
Fuel consumption estimates are presented in Table 11. The aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment is estimated at 18.5 hp‐hr‐gal., obtained from California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2018 Emissions Factors Tables and cited fuel consumption rate factors presented in Table D‐24 of the Moyer guidelines (4). For the purposes of this analysis, the calculations are based on all construction equipment being diesel‐powered which is standard practice consistent with industry standards. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the City and region. As presented in Table 11, Project construction activities would consume an estimated 335,494 gallons of diesel fuel. 3291
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 11: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES Construction Activity Duration
(Days) Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours
Load
Factor
HPhrs/dayTotal Fuel
Consumption
Site Preparation 60
Crawler Tractors 212 6 8 0.43 4,376 14,191
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 5 8 0.40 3,952 12,817
Grading 179
Crawler Tractors 212 3 8 0.43 2,188 21,169
Excavators 158 3 8 0.38 1,441 13,942
Graders 187 2 8 0.41 1,227 11,869
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 2 8 0.40 1,581 15,295
Scrapers 367 3 8 0.48 4,228 40,907
Building Construction 425
Cranes 231 2 8 0.29 1,072 24,623
Crawler Tractors 212 6 8 0.43 4,376 100,522
Forklifts 89 6 8 0.20 854 19,628
Generator Sets 84 2 8 0.74 995 22,848
Welders 46 2 8 0.45 331 7,609
Paving 220
Pavers 130 2 8 0.42 874 10,389
Paving Equipment 132 2 8 0.36 760 9,042
Rollers 80 2 8 0.38 486 5,784
Architectural Coating 300 Air Compressors 78 1 8 0.48 300 4,857 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL) 335,494
3292
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL ESTIMATES
For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that 50% of all worker trips are from light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), 25% are from light-duty-trucks with 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 (LDT1), and 25% are from lightduty-trucks with a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs (LDT2). Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2020.4.0 model defaults utilized within the AQIA. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for LDAs, LDT1s, and LDT2s were estimated using information generated within the 2017 version of the EMFAC developed by the CARB.

Table 12 provides an estimated annual fuel consumption resulting from the Project generated by LDAs, LDT1s, and LDT2s related to construction worker trips. Based on Table 12, it is estimated that 932,311 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction of the proposed Project.

TABLE 12: CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (1 OF 2) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles) VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
LDA
Site Preparation 60 14 14.7 12,348 30.57 404
Grading 179 17 14.7 44,732 30.57 1,463
Building Construction 21 1,801 14.7 555,969 30.57 18,188 LDT1
Site Preparation 60 7 14.7 6,174 24.07 257
Grading 179 9 14.7 23,682 24.07 984
Building Construction 21 901 14.7 278,139 24.07 11,556
LDT2
Site Preparation 60 7 14.7 6,174 23.61 261
Grading 179 9 14.7 23,682 23.61 1,003
Building Construction 21 901 14.7 278,139 23.61 11,779
2024
LDA
Building Construction 262 1,801 14.7 6,936,371 31.36 221,180 LDT1
Building Construction 262 901 14.7 3,470,111 24.91 139,294 3293
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 12: CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (2 OF 2) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles) VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2024
LDT2
Building Construction 262 901 14.7 3,470,111 24.17 143,564 2025
LDA
Building Construction 142 1,801 14.7 3,759,407 32.22 116,665 Paving 119 8 14.7 13,994 32.22 434
Architectural Coating 199 360 14.7 1,053,108 32.22 32,681 LDT1
Building Construction 142 901 14.7 1,880,747 24.91 75,495 Paving 119 4 14.7 6,997 24.91 281
Architectural Coating 199 180 14.7 526,554 24.91 21,136 LDT2
Building Construction 142 901 14.7 1,880,747 24.74 76,017 Paving 119 4 14.7 6,997 24.74 283
Architectural Coating 199 180 14.7 526,554 24.74 21,283 2026
LDA
Paving 101 8 14.7 11,878 33.01 360
Architectural Coating 101 360 14.7 534,492 33.01 16,192 LDT1
Paving 101 4 14.7 5,939 25.37 234
Architectural Coating 101 180 14.7 267,246 25.37 10,533 LDT2
Paving 101 4 14.7 5,939 25.29 235
Architectural Coating 101 180 14.7 267,246 25.29 10,567 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION 932,311
3294
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

CONSTRUCTION VENDOR FUEL ESTIMATES
It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from Medium-Heavy-Duty-Trucks (MHDT) and 50% are from Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT). These assumptions are consistent with the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults utilized within the within the AQIA. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for MHDTs and HHDTs were estimated using information generated within EMFAC2017.

Table 13 shows the estimated fuel economy of MHDTs and HHDTs accessing the Project site. Based on Table 13, fuel consumption from construction trips will total approximately 412,179 gallons.

TABLE 13: CONSTRUCTION VENDOR/HAULING FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (1 OF 2) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Vendor/
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles) VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
MHDT
Site Preparation 60 36 6.9 14,904 8.30 1,796
Grading 179 107 6.9 132,156 8.30 15,928
Building Construction 21 253 6.9 36,660 8.30 4,418
HHDT (Vendor)
Site Preparation 60 36 6.9 14,904 5.94 2,509
Grading 179 107 6.9 132,156 5.94 22,244
Building Construction 21 253 6.9 36,660 5.94 6,170
2024
MHDT
Building Construction 262 253 6.9 457,373 8.34 54,833
HHDT (Vendor)
Building Construction 262 253 6.9 457,373 6.03 75,909
2025
MHDT
Building Construction 142 253 6.9 247,889 8.46 29,310
Paving 119 131 6.9 107,564 8.46 12,718
Architectural Coating 199 178 6.9 244,412 8.46 28,898
HHDT (Vendor)
Building Construction 142 253 6.9 247,889 6.13 40,439
Paving 119 131 6.9 107,564 6.13 17,547
Architectural Coating 199 178 6.9 244,412 6.13 39,872
3295
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
TABLE 13: CONSTRUCTION VENDOR/HAULING FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (2 OF 2) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Vendor/
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles) VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2026
MHDT
Paving 101 131 6.9 91,294 8.59 10,632
Architectural Coating 101 178 6.9 124,048 8.59 14,446
HHDT (Vendor)
Paving 101 131 6.9 91,294 6.24 14,630
Architectural Coating 101 178 6.9 124,048 6.24 19,879
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION VENDOR AND HAULING FUEL CONSUMPTION 412,179

TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DEMANDS
Energy that would be consumed by Project‐generated traffic is a function of total VMT and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. Table 14 presents the estimated annual fuel consumption from project-generated traffic.

TABLE 14: PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION Vehicle Type Average Vehicle Fuel
Economy (mpg) Annual VMT Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) LDA 33.01 17,115,973 518,499
LDT1 25.37 1,773,342 69,891
LDT2 25.29 5,448,785 215,456
MDV 20.66 4,152,430 200,977
MCY 42.30 772,545 18,265
LHDT1 16.62 3,583,017 215,577
LHDT2 15.58 988,725 63,469
MHDT 8.59 3,436,475 400,190
HHDT 6.24 8,766,474 1,404,831
TRUs - - 262
TOTAL ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 46,037,767 3,107,417
MDV = Medium Duty Trucks; LHDT1 = Light-Duty Trucks (Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs.); LHDT2 = Light-Duty Trucks (Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. ) 3296
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

FACILITY ENERGY DEMANDS
Project building operations and Project site maintenance activities would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and electricity would be supplied to the Project by SCE. Annual natural gas and electricity demands of the Project are summarized in Table 15.

TABLE 15: PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY DEMAND SUMMARY Land Use Natural Gas Demand
(kBTU/year)
Electricity Demand
(kWh/year)
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 33,229,700 25,591,900
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 7,316,570 8,444,990 Parking 0 369,024
Landscape 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0
TOTAL PROJECT ENERGY DEMAND 40,546,270 34,405,914
3297
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Haseeb Qureshi,
Principal
3298
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
March 15, 2022

14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

REFERENCES

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

South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

2. Pray, Richard. 2022 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2022.

3. Southern California Edison. Regulatory Information - Rates Pricing. [Online] https://www.sce.com/regulatory/tariff-books/rates-pricing-choices.

4. California Air Resources Board. Methods to Find the Cost‐Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects For Evaluating Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Projects And Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Projects, Emission Factor Tables. 2018. 3299
14274-03 AQ & EA Memo

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSED PROJECT CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL MODEL OUTPUTS 3300
California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project Area is 196.98 acres
Construction Phase - Construction anticipated to beging January 2023 and end in May 2026 Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3,640.08 1000sqft 83.56 3,640,083.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3301
Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Trips and VMT - CalEEMod only assumes Vendor Trips during Building Construction. The CalEEMod default trips were ratioed between each phase based on the number of days
Grading - Analysis conservatively assumes that up to 25 acres can be disturbed per day Architectural Coating - MM Impact 5.3.2
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 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 300.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3,100.00 425.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 310.00 179.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 120.00 60.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.37 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.17 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 36.52 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.82 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 48.51 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.03 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.95 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.33 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 3.22 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 1.98 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1,163.50 4,475.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3302
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 330.00 1,500.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 642,370.00 642,368.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,640,080.00 3,640,083.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.10 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 603.83 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 3,421.68 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 71.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 213.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 1,406.00 505.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 356.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3303
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 261.00
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 48.00 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 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 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_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3304

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 148,548,062.50 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 841,768,500.00 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 29,084,059.75 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3305

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 19.7793 78.6207 177.9618 0.5359 57.3908 2.8173 60.2081 19.6279 2.5926 22.2205 0.0000 54,708.84 74 54,708.84
74 3.7117 2.2966 55,477.04
38 2024 18.4765 74.0647 168.0596 0.5242 43.4973 2.3422 45.8394 11.6093 2.1850 13.7943 0.0000 53,788.07 07 53,788.07
07 3.2545 2.2135 54,529.06
02 2025 36.3959 82.3637 189.0905 0.6435 53.8259 2.2416 56.0674 14.4003 2.0978 16.4981 0.0000 66,713.64 96 66,713.64
96 3.4906 3.2541 67,770.63
88 2026 21.2594 32.8914 48.0797 0.1981 12.1684 0.6814 12.8498 3.3170 0.6382 3.9552 0.0000 20,802.79 15 20,802.79
15 1.1486 1.7983 21,367.40
66 Maximum 36.3959 82.3637 189.0905 0.6435 57.3908 2.8173 60.2081 19.6279 2.5926 22.2205 0.0000 66,713.64 96 66,713.64
96 3.7117 3.2541 67,770.63
88 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3306

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 19.7793 78.6207 177.9618 0.5359 43.4973 2.8173 46.0630 11.6093 2.5926 14.0041 0.0000 54,708.84 74 54,708.84
74 3.7117 2.2966 55,477.04
38 2024 18.4765 74.0647 168.0596 0.5242 43.4973 2.3422 45.8394 11.6093 2.1850 13.7943 0.0000 53,788.07 07 53,788.07
07 3.2545 2.2135 54,529.06
02 2025 36.3959 82.3637 189.0905 0.6435 53.8259 2.2416 56.0674 14.4003 2.0978 16.4981 0.0000 66,713.64 96 66,713.64
96 3.4906 3.2541 67,770.63
88 2026 21.2594 32.8914 48.0797 0.1981 12.1684 0.6814 12.8498 3.3170 0.6382 3.9552 0.0000 20,802.79 15 20,802.79
15 1.1486 1.7983 21,367.40
66 Maximum 36.3959 82.3637 189.0905 0.6435 53.8259 2.8173 56.0674 14.4003 2.5926 16.4981 0.0000 66,713.64 96 66,713.64
96 3.7117 3.2541 67,770.63
88 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 8.33 0.00 8.08 16.38 0.00 14.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3307

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 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 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 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0050.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0030.0000 2.3043 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 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 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 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0050.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0030.0000 2.3043 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3308

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 1/2/2023 3/24/2023 5 60 2 Grading Grading 3/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 179
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2023 7/17/2025 5 425 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/28/2025 5/21/2026 5 300 5 Paving Paving 7/18/2025 5/21/2026 5 220
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 5 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 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 6,423,677; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,141,226; Striped Parking Area:
193,832 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1500
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4475
Acres of Paving: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3309

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 3 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 2 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
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
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 11 28.00 71.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 13 33.00 213.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 18 3,602.00 505.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 720.00 356.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 261.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3310

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 56.6229 0.0000 56.6229 19.4139 0.0000 19.4139 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 2.7970 2.7970 2.5733 2.5733 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Total 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 56.6229 2.7970 59.4200 19.4139 2.5733 21.9871 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0831 2.4904 1.0450 0.0127 0.4549 0.0187 0.4736 0.1310 0.0179 0.1489 1,362.619 1 1,362.619
1 0.0356 0.2012 1,423.473
4 Worker 0.1095 0.0661 1.0559 2.8000e0030.3130 1.5500e0030.3145 0.0830 1.4200e0030.0844 286.0672 286.0672 6.8300e0036.7300e003288.2426 Total 0.1926 2.5564 2.1009 0.0155 0.7679 0.0203 0.7881 0.2140 0.0193 0.2333 1,648.686 3 1,648.686
3 0.0424 0.2080 1,711.716
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3311

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 22.0830 0.0000 22.0830 7.5714 0.0000 7.5714 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 2.7970 2.7970 2.5733 2.5733 0.0000 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Total 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 22.0830 2.7970 24.8800 7.5714 2.5733 10.1447 0.0000 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0831 2.4904 1.0450 0.0127 0.4549 0.0187 0.4736 0.1310 0.0179 0.1489 1,362.619 1 1,362.619
1 0.0356 0.2012 1,423.473
4 Worker 0.1095 0.0661 1.0559 2.8000e0030.3130 1.5500e0030.3145 0.0830 1.4200e0030.0844 286.0672 286.0672 6.8300e0036.7300e003288.2426 Total 0.1926 2.5564 2.1009 0.0155 0.7679 0.0203 0.7881 0.2140 0.0193 0.2333 1,648.686 3 1,648.686
3 0.0424 0.2080 1,711.716
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3312

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 38.5567 0.0000 38.5567 9.4832 0.0000 9.4832 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 2.7413 2.7413 2.5220 2.5220 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Total 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 38.5567 2.7413 41.2980 9.4832 2.5220 12.0052 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2493 7.4711 3.1350 0.0381 1.3646 0.0561 1.4208 0.3930 0.0537 0.4467 4,087.857 2 4,087.857
2 0.1068 0.6037 4,270.420
3 Worker 0.1290 0.0779 1.2445 3.2900e0030.3689 1.8200e0030.3707 0.0978 1.6800e0030.0995 337.1506 337.1506 8.0500e0037.9300e003339.7145 Total 0.3784 7.5490 4.3794 0.0414 1.7335 0.0580 1.7915 0.4908 0.0554 0.5462 4,425.007 9 4,425.007
9 0.1149 0.6116 4,610.134
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3313

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 15.0371 0.0000 15.0371 3.6984 0.0000 3.6984 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 2.7413 2.7413 2.5220 2.5220 0.0000 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Total 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 15.0371 2.7413 17.7785 3.6984 2.5220 6.2205 0.0000 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2493 7.4711 3.1350 0.0381 1.3646 0.0561 1.4208 0.3930 0.0537 0.4467 4,087.857 2 4,087.857
2 0.1068 0.6037 4,270.420
3 Worker 0.1290 0.0779 1.2445 3.2900e0030.3689 1.8200e0030.3707 0.0978 1.6800e0030.0995 337.1506 337.1506 8.0500e0037.9300e003339.7145 Total 0.3784 7.5490 4.3794 0.0414 1.7335 0.0580 1.7915 0.4908 0.0554 0.5462 4,425.007 9 4,425.007
9 0.1149 0.6116 4,610.134
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3314

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Total 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5911 17.7132 7.4327 0.0904 3.2354 0.1331 3.3685 0.9316 0.1273 1.0590 9,691.868 1 9,691.868
1 0.2533 1.4312 10,124.70
53 Worker 14.0845 8.4987 135.8350 0.3596 40.2619 0.1989 40.4608 10.6776 0.1831 10.8607 36,800.50 08 36,800.50
08 0.8790 0.8654 37,080.35
37 Total 14.6756 26.2119 143.2677 0.4500 43.4973 0.3320 43.8293 11.6093 0.3104 11.9197 46,492.36 89 46,492.36
89 1.1323 2.2966 47,205.05
90 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3315

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 0.0000 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Total 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 0.0000 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5911 17.7132 7.4327 0.0904 3.2354 0.1331 3.3685 0.9316 0.1273 1.0590 9,691.868 1 9,691.868
1 0.2533 1.4312 10,124.70
53 Worker 14.0845 8.4987 135.8350 0.3596 40.2619 0.1989 40.4608 10.6776 0.1831 10.8607 36,800.50 08 36,800.50
08 0.8790 0.8654 37,080.35
37 Total 14.6756 26.2119 143.2677 0.4500 43.4973 0.3320 43.8293 11.6093 0.3104 11.9197 46,492.36 89 46,492.36
89 1.1323 2.2966 47,205.05
90 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3316

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Total 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5775 17.8708 7.3091 0.0891 3.2354 0.1311 3.3664 0.9316 0.1254 1.0570 9,558.355 9 9,558.355
9 0.2456 1.4113 9,985.070
4 Worker 13.0842 7.5450 126.4948 0.3491 40.2619 0.1911 40.4530 10.6776 0.1759 10.8536 36,010.98 51 36,010.98
51 0.7952 0.8022 36,269.91
82 Total 13.6616 25.4158 133.8040 0.4382 43.4973 0.3222 43.8195 11.6093 0.3013 11.9106 45,569.34 10 45,569.34
10 1.0408 2.2135 46,254.98
86 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3317

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 0.0000 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Total 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 0.0000 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5775 17.8708 7.3091 0.0891 3.2354 0.1311 3.3664 0.9316 0.1254 1.0570 9,558.355 9 9,558.355
9 0.2456 1.4113 9,985.070
4 Worker 13.0842 7.5450 126.4948 0.3491 40.2619 0.1911 40.4530 10.6776 0.1759 10.8536 36,010.98 51 36,010.98
51 0.7952 0.8022 36,269.91
82 Total 13.6616 25.4158 133.8040 0.4382 43.4973 0.3222 43.8195 11.6093 0.3013 11.9106 45,569.34 10 45,569.34
10 1.0408 2.2135 46,254.98
86 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3318

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Total 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5664 17.7640 7.1944 0.0874 3.2353 0.1309 3.3662 0.9316 0.1252 1.0568 9,372.527 6 9,372.527
6 0.2386 1.3831 9,790.659
1 Worker 12.1790 6.7350 117.4208 0.3371 40.2619 0.1818 40.4437 10.6776 0.1673 10.8450 35,121.76 47 35,121.76
47 0.7149 0.7467 35,362.15
61 Total 12.7454 24.4990 124.6152 0.4245 43.4972 0.3127 43.8099 11.6093 0.2925 11.9018 44,494.29 23 44,494.29
23 0.9534 2.1298 45,152.81
52 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3319

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 0.0000 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Total 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 0.0000 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5664 17.7640 7.1944 0.0874 3.2353 0.1309 3.3662 0.9316 0.1252 1.0568 9,372.527 6 9,372.527
6 0.2386 1.3831 9,790.659
1 Worker 12.1790 6.7350 117.4208 0.3371 40.2619 0.1818 40.4437 10.6776 0.1673 10.8450 35,121.76 47 35,121.76
47 0.7149 0.7467 35,362.15
61 Total 12.7454 24.4990 124.6152 0.4245 43.4972 0.3127 43.8099 11.6093 0.2925 11.9018 44,494.29 23 44,494.29
23 0.9534 2.1298 45,152.81
52 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3320

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3993 12.5228 5.0717 0.0616 2.2808 0.0923 2.3730 0.6567 0.0883 0.7450 6,607.168 0 6,607.168
0 0.1682 0.9750 6,901.930
0 Worker 2.4345 1.3463 23.4711 0.0674 8.0479 0.0363 8.0842 2.1343 0.0334 2.1678 7,020.452 7 7,020.452
7 0.1429 0.1493 7,068.504
3 Total 2.8337 13.8690 28.5428 0.1290 10.3287 0.1286 10.4573 2.7911 0.1217 2.9128 13,627.62 07 13,627.62
07 0.3111 1.1243 13,970.43
43 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3321

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3993 12.5228 5.0717 0.0616 2.2808 0.0923 2.3730 0.6567 0.0883 0.7450 6,607.168 0 6,607.168
0 0.1682 0.9750 6,901.930
0 Worker 2.4345 1.3463 23.4711 0.0674 8.0479 0.0363 8.0842 2.1343 0.0334 2.1678 7,020.452 7 7,020.452
7 0.1429 0.1493 7,068.504
3 Total 2.8337 13.8690 28.5428 0.1290 10.3287 0.1286 10.4573 2.7911 0.1217 2.9128 13,627.62 07 13,627.62
07 0.3111 1.1243 13,970.43
43 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3322

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3923 12.4301 5.0043 0.0604 2.2807 0.0917 2.3725 0.6567 0.0877 0.7445 6,475.866 7 6,475.866
7 0.1630 0.9551 6,764.551
7 Worker 2.2773 1.2138 21.9589 0.0653 8.0479 0.0345 8.0824 2.1343 0.0317 2.1661 6,854.360 3 6,854.360
3 0.1292 0.1401 6,899.350
3 Total 2.6695 13.6440 26.9632 0.1257 10.3286 0.1262 10.4548 2.7911 0.1195 2.9105 13,330.22 70 13,330.22
70 0.2923 1.0952 13,663.90
20 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3323

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3923 12.4301 5.0043 0.0604 2.2807 0.0917 2.3725 0.6567 0.0877 0.7445 6,475.866 7 6,475.866
7 0.1630 0.9551 6,764.551
7 Worker 2.2773 1.2138 21.9589 0.0653 8.0479 0.0345 8.0824 2.1343 0.0317 2.1661 6,854.360 3 6,854.360
3 0.1292 0.1401 6,899.350
3 Total 2.6695 13.6440 26.9632 0.1257 10.3286 0.1262 10.4548 2.7911 0.1195 2.9105 13,330.22 70 13,330.22
70 0.2923 1.0952 13,663.90
20 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3324

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2927 9.1810 3.7183 0.0452 1.6721 0.0677 1.7398 0.4815 0.0647 0.5462 4,844.019 2 4,844.019
2 0.1233 0.7148 5,060.122
8 Worker 0.0507 0.0281 0.4890 1.4000e0030.1677 7.6000e0040.1684 0.0445 7.0000e0040.0452 146.2594 146.2594 2.9800e0033.1100e003147.2605 Total 0.3434 9.2091 4.2073 0.0466 1.8398 0.0684 1.9082 0.5260 0.0654 0.5914 4,990.278 7 4,990.278
7 0.1263 0.7180 5,207.383
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3325

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2927 9.1810 3.7183 0.0452 1.6721 0.0677 1.7398 0.4815 0.0647 0.5462 4,844.019 2 4,844.019
2 0.1233 0.7148 5,060.122
8 Worker 0.0507 0.0281 0.4890 1.4000e0030.1677 7.6000e0040.1684 0.0445 7.0000e0040.0452 146.2594 146.2594 2.9800e0033.1100e003147.2605 Total 0.3434 9.2091 4.2073 0.0466 1.8398 0.0684 1.9082 0.5260 0.0654 0.5914 4,990.278 7 4,990.278
7 0.1263 0.7180 5,207.383
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3326

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2876 9.1131 3.6689 0.0443 1.6721 0.0672 1.7394 0.4815 0.0643 0.5458 4,747.756 2 4,747.756
2 0.1195 0.7002 4,959.404
5 Worker 0.0474 0.0253 0.4575 1.3600e0030.1677 7.2000e0040.1684 0.0445 6.6000e0040.0451 142.7992 142.7992 2.6900e0032.9200e003143.7365 Total 0.3350 9.1384 4.1264 0.0456 1.8398 0.0680 1.9077 0.5260 0.0650 0.5909 4,890.555 3 4,890.555
3 0.1222 0.7031 5,103.141
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3327

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2876 9.1131 3.6689 0.0443 1.6721 0.0672 1.7394 0.4815 0.0643 0.5458 4,747.756 2 4,747.756
2 0.1195 0.7002 4,959.404
5 Worker 0.0474 0.0253 0.4575 1.3600e0030.1677 7.2000e0040.1684 0.0445 6.6000e0040.0451 142.7992 142.7992 2.6900e0032.9200e003143.7365 Total 0.3350 9.1384 4.1264 0.0456 1.8398 0.0680 1.9077 0.5260 0.0650 0.5909 4,890.555 3 4,890.555
3 0.1222 0.7031 5,103.141
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3328

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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

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
City Park 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 City Park 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3329
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 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
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3330
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 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

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 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 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 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3331

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 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 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 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3332
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Unmitigated 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043

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

11.1224 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

85.9916 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0927 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3333

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

11.1224 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

85.9916 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0927 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3334

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:49 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3335
California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project Area is 196.98 acres
Construction Phase - Construction anticipated to beging January 2023 and end in May 2026 Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3,640.08 1000sqft 83.56 3,640,083.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3336
Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Trips and VMT - CalEEMod only assumes Vendor Trips during Building Construction. The CalEEMod default trips were ratioed between each phase based on the number of days
Grading - Analysis conservatively assumes that up to 25 acres can be disturbed per day Architectural Coating - MM Impact 5.3.2
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 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 300.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3,100.00 425.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 310.00 179.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 120.00 60.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.37 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.17 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 36.52 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.82 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 48.51 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.03 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.95 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.33 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 3.22 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 1.98 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1,163.50 4,475.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3337
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 330.00 1,500.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 642,370.00 642,368.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,640,080.00 3,640,083.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.10 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 603.83 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 3,421.68 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 71.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 213.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 1,406.00 505.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 356.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3338
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 261.00
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 48.00 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 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 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_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3339

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 148,548,062.50 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 841,768,500.00 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 29,084,059.75 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3340

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 19.2209 80.0544 154.1555 0.5023 57.3908 2.8174 60.2082 19.6279 2.5927 22.2205 0.0000 51,272.16 89 51,272.16
89 3.7109 2.3289 52,049.95
69 2024 17.9859 75.4526 146.0204 0.4917 43.4973 2.3427 45.8400 11.6093 2.1855 13.7948 0.0000 50,432.59 52 50,432.59
52 3.2550 2.2434 51,182.49
54 2025 35.8561 84.4753 164.8238 0.6060 53.8259 2.2424 56.0683 14.4003 2.0986 16.4989 0.0000 62,808.14 39 62,808.14
39 3.4925 3.2896 63,875.76
07 2026 21.1396 34.1662 44.4483 0.1921 12.1684 0.6820 12.8503 3.3170 0.6387 3.9558 0.0000 20,176.87 76 20,176.87
76 1.1473 1.8079 20,744.30
84 Maximum 35.8561 84.4753 164.8238 0.6060 57.3908 2.8174 60.2082 19.6279 2.5927 22.2205 0.0000 62,808.14 39 62,808.14
39 3.7109 3.2896 63,875.76
07 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3341

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 19.2209 80.0544 154.1555 0.5023 43.4973 2.8174 46.0636 11.6093 2.5927 14.0046 0.0000 51,272.16 89 51,272.16
89 3.7109 2.3289 52,049.95
69 2024 17.9859 75.4526 146.0204 0.4917 43.4973 2.3427 45.8400 11.6093 2.1855 13.7948 0.0000 50,432.59 51 50,432.59
51 3.2550 2.2434 51,182.49
54 2025 35.8561 84.4753 164.8238 0.6060 53.8259 2.2424 56.0683 14.4003 2.0986 16.4989 0.0000 62,808.14 39 62,808.14
39 3.4925 3.2896 63,875.76
07 2026 21.1396 34.1662 44.4483 0.1921 12.1684 0.6820 12.8503 3.3170 0.6387 3.9558 0.0000 20,176.87 76 20,176.87
76 1.1473 1.8079 20,744.30
84 Maximum 35.8561 84.4753 164.8238 0.6060 53.8259 2.8174 56.0683 14.4003 2.5927 16.4989 0.0000 62,808.14 39 62,808.14
39 3.7109 3.2896 63,875.76
07 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 8.33 0.00 8.08 16.38 0.00 14.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3342

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 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 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 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0050.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0030.0000 2.3043 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 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 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 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0050.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0030.0000 2.3043 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3343

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 1/2/2023 3/24/2023 5 60 2 Grading Grading 3/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 179
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2023 7/17/2025 5 425 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/28/2025 5/21/2026 5 300 5 Paving Paving 7/18/2025 5/21/2026 5 220
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 5 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 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 6,423,677; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,141,226; Striped Parking Area:
193,832 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1500
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4475
Acres of Paving: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3344

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 3 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 2 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
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
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 11 28.00 71.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 13 33.00 213.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 18 3,602.00 505.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 720.00 356.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 261.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3345

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 56.6229 0.0000 56.6229 19.4139 0.0000 19.4139 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 2.7970 2.7970 2.5733 2.5733 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Total 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 56.6229 2.7970 59.4200 19.4139 2.5733 21.9871 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0773 2.6305 1.0772 0.0127 0.4549 0.0188 0.4737 0.1310 0.0180 0.1490 1,365.923 6 1,365.923
6 0.0353 0.2019 1,426.957
1 Worker 0.1055 0.0695 0.8691 2.5300e0030.3130 1.5500e0030.3145 0.0830 1.4200e0030.0844 259.1696 259.1696 6.8400e0036.9400e003261.4097 Total 0.1828 2.6999 1.9463 0.0153 0.7679 0.0203 0.7882 0.2140 0.0194 0.2334 1,625.093 2 1,625.093
2 0.0422 0.2088 1,688.366
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3346

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 22.0830 0.0000 22.0830 7.5714 0.0000 7.5714 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 2.7970 2.7970 2.5733 2.5733 0.0000 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Total 6.0883 66.3832 28.9937 0.0897 22.0830 2.7970 24.8800 7.5714 2.5733 10.1447 0.0000 8,684.633 9 8,684.633
9 2.8088 8,754.853
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0773 2.6305 1.0772 0.0127 0.4549 0.0188 0.4737 0.1310 0.0180 0.1490 1,365.923 6 1,365.923
6 0.0353 0.2019 1,426.957
1 Worker 0.1055 0.0695 0.8691 2.5300e0030.3130 1.5500e0030.3145 0.0830 1.4200e0030.0844 259.1696 259.1696 6.8400e0036.9400e003261.4097 Total 0.1828 2.6999 1.9463 0.0153 0.7679 0.0203 0.7882 0.2140 0.0194 0.2334 1,625.093 2 1,625.093
2 0.0422 0.2088 1,688.366
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3347

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 38.5567 0.0000 38.5567 9.4832 0.0000 9.4832 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 2.7413 2.7413 2.5220 2.5220 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Total 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 38.5567 2.7413 41.2980 9.4832 2.5220 12.0052 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2320 7.8914 3.2317 0.0382 1.3646 0.0564 1.4210 0.3930 0.0539 0.4469 4,097.770 7 4,097.770
7 0.1060 0.6055 4,280.871
3 Worker 0.1243 0.0819 1.0243 2.9800e0030.3689 1.8200e0030.3707 0.0978 1.6800e0030.0995 305.4499 305.4499 8.0600e0038.1800e003308.0900 Total 0.3563 7.9733 4.2560 0.0412 1.7335 0.0582 1.7917 0.4908 0.0556 0.5464 4,403.220 6 4,403.220
6 0.1141 0.6137 4,588.961
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3348

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 15.0371 0.0000 15.0371 3.6984 0.0000 3.6984 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 2.7413 2.7413 2.5220 2.5220 0.0000 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Total 6.3951 68.4302 44.5133 0.1149 15.0371 2.7413 17.7785 3.6984 2.5220 6.2205 0.0000 11,121.23 02 11,121.23
02 3.5968 11,211.15
10 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2320 7.8914 3.2317 0.0382 1.3646 0.0564 1.4210 0.3930 0.0539 0.4469 4,097.770 7 4,097.770
7 0.1060 0.6055 4,280.871
3 Worker 0.1243 0.0819 1.0243 2.9800e0030.3689 1.8200e0030.3707 0.0978 1.6800e0030.0995 305.4499 305.4499 8.0600e0038.1800e003308.0900 Total 0.3563 7.9733 4.2560 0.0412 1.7335 0.0582 1.7917 0.4908 0.0556 0.5464 4,403.220 6 4,403.220
6 0.1141 0.6137 4,588.961
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3349

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Total 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5499 18.7096 7.6620 0.0906 3.2354 0.1337 3.3691 0.9316 0.1279 1.0595 9,715.371 9 9,715.371
9 0.2513 1.4357 10,149.48
35 Worker 13.5673 8.9360 111.7993 0.3258 40.2619 0.1989 40.4608 10.6776 0.1831 10.8607 33,340.31 85 33,340.31
85 0.8801 0.8932 33,628.48
86 Total 14.1172 27.6456 119.4613 0.4164 43.4973 0.3326 43.8299 11.6093 0.3110 11.9202 43,055.69 04 43,055.69
04 1.1314 2.3289 43,777.97
22 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3350

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 0.0000 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Total 5.1037 52.4088 34.6941 0.0860 2.2337 2.2337 2.0843 2.0843 0.0000 8,216.478 5 8,216.478
5 2.2203 8,271.984
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5499 18.7096 7.6620 0.0906 3.2354 0.1337 3.3691 0.9316 0.1279 1.0595 9,715.371 9 9,715.371
9 0.2513 1.4357 10,149.48
35 Worker 13.5673 8.9360 111.7993 0.3258 40.2619 0.1989 40.4608 10.6776 0.1831 10.8607 33,340.31 85 33,340.31
85 0.8801 0.8932 33,628.48
86 Total 14.1172 27.6456 119.4613 0.4164 43.4973 0.3326 43.8299 11.6093 0.3110 11.9202 43,055.69 04 43,055.69
04 1.1314 2.3289 43,777.97
22 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3351

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Total 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5362 18.8738 7.5365 0.0894 3.2354 0.1316 3.3670 0.9316 0.1259 1.0575 9,581.717 0 9,581.717
0 0.2436 1.4157 10,009.67
62 Worker 12.6348 7.9299 104.2283 0.3163 40.2619 0.1911 40.4530 10.6776 0.1759 10.8536 32,632.14 85 32,632.14
85 0.7978 0.8277 32,898.74
76 Total 13.1710 26.8037 111.7647 0.4057 43.4973 0.3227 43.8200 11.6093 0.3018 11.9111 42,213.86 54 42,213.86
54 1.0414 2.2434 42,908.42
38 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3352

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 0.0000 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Total 4.8149 48.6489 34.2556 0.0860 2.0200 2.0200 1.8837 1.8837 0.0000 8,218.729 7 8,218.729
7 2.2137 8,274.071
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5362 18.8738 7.5365 0.0894 3.2354 0.1316 3.3670 0.9316 0.1259 1.0575 9,581.717 0 9,581.717
0 0.2436 1.4157 10,009.67
62 Worker 12.6348 7.9299 104.2283 0.3163 40.2619 0.1911 40.4530 10.6776 0.1759 10.8536 32,632.14 85 32,632.14
85 0.7978 0.8277 32,898.74
76 Total 13.1710 26.8037 111.7647 0.4057 43.4973 0.3227 43.8200 11.6093 0.3018 11.9111 42,213.86 54 42,213.86
54 1.0414 2.2434 42,908.42
38 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3353

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Total 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5250 18.7623 7.4197 0.0876 3.2353 0.1314 3.3667 0.9316 0.1257 1.0573 9,395.654 0 9,395.654
0 0.2365 1.3874 9,815.001
9 Worker 11.7879 7.0763 96.8765 0.3056 40.2619 0.1818 40.4437 10.6776 0.1673 10.8450 31,834.01 45 31,834.01
45 0.7193 0.7703 32,081.53
46 Total 12.3129 25.8387 104.2963 0.3932 43.4972 0.3132 43.8104 11.6093 0.2930 11.9023 41,229.66 86 41,229.66
86 0.9558 2.1576 41,896.53
66 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3354

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 0.0000 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Total 4.3616 42.4683 33.5203 0.0860 1.7316 1.7316 1.6149 1.6149 0.0000 8,216.472 6 8,216.472
6 2.2056 8,271.613
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.5250 18.7623 7.4197 0.0876 3.2353 0.1314 3.3667 0.9316 0.1257 1.0573 9,395.654 0 9,395.654
0 0.2365 1.3874 9,815.001
9 Worker 11.7879 7.0763 96.8765 0.3056 40.2619 0.1818 40.4437 10.6776 0.1673 10.8450 31,834.01 45 31,834.01
45 0.7193 0.7703 32,081.53
46 Total 12.3129 25.8387 104.2963 0.3932 43.4972 0.3132 43.8104 11.6093 0.2930 11.9023 41,229.66 86 41,229.66
86 0.9558 2.1576 41,896.53
66 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3355

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3701 13.2265 5.2305 0.0618 2.2808 0.0926 2.3734 0.6567 0.0886 0.7453 6,623.471 0 6,623.471
0 0.1667 0.9780 6,919.090
5 Worker 2.3563 1.4145 19.3646 0.0611 8.0479 0.0363 8.0842 2.1343 0.0334 2.1678 6,363.267 8 6,363.267
8 0.1438 0.1540 6,412.744
3 Total 2.7264 14.6410 24.5951 0.1229 10.3287 0.1290 10.4576 2.7911 0.1220 2.9131 12,986.73 87 12,986.73
87 0.3105 1.1320 13,331.83
48 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3356

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3701 13.2265 5.2305 0.0618 2.2808 0.0926 2.3734 0.6567 0.0886 0.7453 6,623.471 0 6,623.471
0 0.1667 0.9780 6,919.090
5 Worker 2.3563 1.4145 19.3646 0.0611 8.0479 0.0363 8.0842 2.1343 0.0334 2.1678 6,363.267 8 6,363.267
8 0.1438 0.1540 6,412.744
3 Total 2.7264 14.6410 24.5951 0.1229 10.3287 0.1290 10.4576 2.7911 0.1220 2.9131 12,986.73 87 12,986.73
87 0.3105 1.1320 13,331.83
48 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3357

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3631 13.1297 5.1617 0.0606 2.2807 0.0921 2.3728 0.6567 0.0881 0.7448 6,491.966 0 6,491.966
0 0.1616 0.9580 6,781.489
4 Worker 2.2095 1.2750 18.1344 0.0592 8.0479 0.0345 8.0824 2.1343 0.0317 2.1661 6,213.887 0 6,213.887
0 0.1304 0.1445 6,260.212
0 Total 2.5726 14.4047 23.2961 0.1197 10.3286 0.1265 10.4552 2.7911 0.1198 2.9109 12,705.85 30 12,705.85
30 0.2919 1.1025 13,041.70
14 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3358

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.2275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2278 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Total 16.4553 1.5273 2.4122 3.9600e0030.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0687 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0205 375.7758 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3631 13.1297 5.1617 0.0606 2.2807 0.0921 2.3728 0.6567 0.0881 0.7448 6,491.966 0 6,491.966
0 0.1616 0.9580 6,781.489
4 Worker 2.2095 1.2750 18.1344 0.0592 8.0479 0.0345 8.0824 2.1343 0.0317 2.1661 6,213.887 0 6,213.887
0 0.1304 0.1445 6,260.212
0 Total 2.5726 14.4047 23.2961 0.1197 10.3286 0.1265 10.4552 2.7911 0.1198 2.9109 12,705.85 30 12,705.85
30 0.2919 1.1025 13,041.70
14 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3359

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2713 9.6970 3.8348 0.0453 1.6721 0.0679 1.7400 0.4815 0.0650 0.5465 4,855.971 7 4,855.971
7 0.1222 0.7170 5,072.704
0 Worker 0.0491 0.0295 0.4034 1.2700e0030.1677 7.6000e0040.1684 0.0445 7.0000e0040.0452 132.5681 132.5681 3.0000e0033.2100e003133.5988 Total 0.3204 9.7264 4.2382 0.0466 1.8398 0.0687 1.9085 0.5260 0.0657 0.5916 4,988.539 8 4,988.539
8 0.1252 0.7202 5,206.302
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3360

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2713 9.6970 3.8348 0.0453 1.6721 0.0679 1.7400 0.4815 0.0650 0.5465 4,855.971 7 4,855.971
7 0.1222 0.7170 5,072.704
0 Worker 0.0491 0.0295 0.4034 1.2700e0030.1677 7.6000e0040.1684 0.0445 7.0000e0040.0452 132.5681 132.5681 3.0000e0033.2100e003133.5988 Total 0.3204 9.7264 4.2382 0.0466 1.8398 0.0687 1.9085 0.5260 0.0657 0.5916 4,988.539 8 4,988.539
8 0.1252 0.7202 5,206.302
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3361

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2662 9.6260 3.7843 0.0444 1.6721 0.0675 1.7396 0.4815 0.0646 0.5461 4,759.559 4 4,759.559
4 0.1185 0.7024 4,971.822
3 Worker 0.0460 0.0266 0.3778 1.2300e0030.1677 7.2000e0040.1684 0.0445 6.6000e0040.0451 129.4560 129.4560 2.7200e0033.0100e003130.4211 Total 0.3122 9.6526 4.1621 0.0456 1.8398 0.0682 1.9080 0.5260 0.0652 0.5912 4,889.015 4 4,889.015
4 0.1212 0.7054 5,102.243
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3362

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.8844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7995 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2662 9.6260 3.7843 0.0444 1.6721 0.0675 1.7396 0.4815 0.0646 0.5461 4,759.559 4 4,759.559
4 0.1185 0.7024 4,971.822
3 Worker 0.0460 0.0266 0.3778 1.2300e0030.1677 7.2000e0040.1684 0.0445 6.6000e0040.0451 129.4560 129.4560 2.7200e0033.0100e003130.4211 Total 0.3122 9.6526 4.1621 0.0456 1.8398 0.0682 1.9080 0.5260 0.0652 0.5912 4,889.015 4 4,889.015
4 0.1212 0.7054 5,102.243
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3363

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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

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
City Park 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 City Park 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3364
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 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
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3365
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 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

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 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 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 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3366

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 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 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 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3367
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Unmitigated 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043

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

11.1224 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

85.9916 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0927 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3368

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

11.1224 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

85.9916 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0927 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Total 97.2067 9.1200e0031.0068 8.0000e0053.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e0032.1636 2.1636 5.6300e0032.3043 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3369

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 35 Date: 3/13/2022 12:50 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3370
California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project Area is 196.98 acres
Construction Phase - Construction anticipated to beging January 2023 and end in May 2026 Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Off-road Equipment -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3,640.08 1000sqft 83.56 3,640,083.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3371
Off-road Equipment - Equipment adjusted based on the changes made to the number of days for each construction phase Trips and VMT - CalEEMod only assumes Vendor Trips during Building Construction. The CalEEMod default trips were ratioed between each phase based on the number of days
Grading - Analysis conservatively assumes that up to 25 acres can be disturbed per day Architectural Coating - MM Impact 5.3.2
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 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 300.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3,100.00 425.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 310.00 179.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 120.00 60.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.37 0.00
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.17 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 36.52 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.82 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 48.51 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.03 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.95 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 0.33 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 3.22 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 1.98 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1,163.50 4,475.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3372
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 330.00 1,500.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 642,370.00 642,368.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,640,080.00 3,640,083.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.10 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 603.83 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 3,421.68 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 71.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 213.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 1,406.00 505.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 356.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3373
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 261.00
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 48.00 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 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 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_TL 16.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3374

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 148,548,062.50 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 841,768,500.00 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 29,084,059.75 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3375

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.9835 9.7521 6.9678 0.0225 5.7729 0.3620 6.1349 1.6006 0.3336 1.9342 0.0000 2,035.738 6 2,035.738
6 0.4110 0.0779 2,069.231
5 2024 2.2328 9.9243 19.7711 0.0652 5.5910 0.3069 5.8979 1.4945 0.2863 1.7808 0.0000 6,068.616 8 6,068.616
8 0.3883 0.2696 6,158.660
7 2025 3.1389 7.5653 13.9960 0.0513 4.1469 0.1938 4.3407 1.1140 0.1812 1.2952 0.0000 4,829.204 1 4,829.204
1 0.2798 0.2818 4,920.173
3 2026 1.0599 1.7236 2.2824 9.7500e0030.6035 0.0344 0.6379 0.1648 0.0322 0.1970 0.0000 929.3451 929.3451 0.0527 0.0829 955.3775 Maximum 3.1389 9.9243 19.7711 0.0652 5.7729 0.3620 6.1349 1.6006 0.3336 1.9342 0.0000 6,068.616 8 6,068.616
8 0.4110 0.2818 6,158.660
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3376

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.9835 9.7521 6.9678 0.0225 2.6317 0.3620 2.9937 0.7276 0.3336 1.0612 0.0000 2,035.737 2 2,035.737
2 0.4110 0.0779 2,069.230
0 2024 2.2328 9.9243 19.7711 0.0652 5.5910 0.3069 5.8979 1.4945 0.2863 1.7808 0.0000 6,068.615 6 6,068.615
6 0.3883 0.2696 6,158.659
6 2025 3.1389 7.5653 13.9960 0.0513 4.1469 0.1938 4.3407 1.1140 0.1812 1.2952 0.0000 4,829.203 3 4,829.203
3 0.2798 0.2818 4,920.172
5 2026 1.0599 1.7236 2.2824 9.7500e0030.6035 0.0344 0.6379 0.1648 0.0322 0.1970 0.0000 929.3449 929.3449 0.0527 0.0829 955.3773 Maximum 3.1389 9.9243 19.7711 0.0652 5.5910 0.3620 5.8979 1.4945 0.3336 1.7808 0.0000 6,068.615 6 6,068.615
6 0.4110 0.2818 6,158.659
6 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 19.49 0.00 18.47 19.96 0.00 16.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-2-2023 4-1-2023 2.4442 2.4442
2 4-2-2023 7-1-2023 2.6895 2.6895
3 7-2-2023 10-1-2023 2.7192 2.7192
4 10-2-2023 1-1-2024 2.9144 2.9144
5 1-2-2024 4-1-2024 3.0364 3.0364
6 4-2-2024 7-1-2024 3.0076 3.0076
7 7-2-2024 10-1-2024 3.0410 3.0410
8 10-2-2024 1-1-2025 3.0671 3.0671
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3377
9 1-2-2025 4-1-2025 2.7941 2.7941
10 4-2-2025 7-1-2025 3.8597 3.8597
11 7-2-2025 10-1-2025 2.1616 2.1616
12 10-2-2025 1-1-2026 1.8325 1.8325
13 1-2-2026 4-1-2026 1.7773 1.7773
14 4-2-2026 7-1-2026 0.9670 0.9670
Highest 3.8597 3.8597

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 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 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 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0050.0000 4.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 4.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3378

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 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 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 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0050.0000 4.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 4.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 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 1/2/2023 3/24/2023 5 60 2 Grading Grading 3/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 179
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2023 7/17/2025 5 425 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3379
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/28/2025 5/21/2026 5 300 5 Paving Paving 7/18/2025 5/21/2026 5 220
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 5 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 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 3 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 6 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 2 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 6,423,677; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,141,226; Striped Parking Area:
193,832 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1500
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4475
Acres of Paving: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3380

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.6987 0.0000 1.6987 0.5824 0.0000 0.5824 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1827 1.9915 0.8698 2.6900e0030.0839 0.0839 0.0772 0.0772 0.0000 236.3570 236.3570 0.0764 0.0000 238.2681 Total 0.1827 1.9915 0.8698 2.6900e0031.6987 0.0839 1.7826 0.5824 0.0772 0.6596 0.0000 236.3570 236.3570 0.0764 0.0000 238.2681 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
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 11 28.00 71.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 13 33.00 213.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 18 3,602.00 505.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 720.00 356.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 261.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3381

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 2.4000e0030.0786 0.0318 3.8000e0040.0134 5.6000e0040.0140 3.8800e0035.4000e0044.4200e0030.0000 37.1223 37.1223 9.7000e0045.4900e00338.7813 Worker 2.9300e0032.1800e0030.0273 8.0000e0059.2100e0035.0000e0059.2600e0032.4500e0034.0000e0052.4900e0030.0000 7.1934 7.1934 1.9000e0042.0000e0047.2563 Total 5.3300e0030.0808 0.0591 4.6000e0040.0226 6.1000e0040.0233 6.3300e0035.8000e0046.9100e0030.0000 44.3157 44.3157 1.1600e0035.6900e00346.0376 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 0.6625 0.0000 0.6625 0.2271 0.0000 0.2271 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1827 1.9915 0.8698 2.6900e0030.0839 0.0839 0.0772 0.0772 0.0000 236.3567 236.3567 0.0764 0.0000 238.2678 Total 0.1827 1.9915 0.8698 2.6900e0030.6625 0.0839 0.7464 0.2271 0.0772 0.3043 0.0000 236.3567 236.3567 0.0764 0.0000 238.2678 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3382

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 2.4000e0030.0786 0.0318 3.8000e0040.0134 5.6000e0040.0140 3.8800e0035.4000e0044.4200e0030.0000 37.1223 37.1223 9.7000e0045.4900e00338.7813 Worker 2.9300e0032.1800e0030.0273 8.0000e0059.2100e0035.0000e0059.2600e0032.4500e0034.0000e0052.4900e0030.0000 7.1934 7.1934 1.9000e0042.0000e0047.2563 Total 5.3300e0030.0808 0.0591 4.6000e0040.0226 6.1000e0040.0233 6.3300e0035.8000e0046.9100e0030.0000 44.3157 44.3157 1.1600e0035.6900e00346.0376 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.4508 0.0000 3.4508 0.8487 0.0000 0.8487 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5724 6.1245 3.9839 0.0103 0.2454 0.2454 0.2257 0.2257 0.0000 902.9664 902.9664 0.2920 0.0000 910.2674 Total 0.5724 6.1245 3.9839 0.0103 3.4508 0.2454 3.6962 0.8487 0.2257 1.0745 0.0000 902.9664 902.9664 0.2920 0.0000 910.2674 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3383

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0215 0.7033 0.2847 3.4100e0030.1202 5.0300e0030.1253 0.0347 4.8200e0030.0395 0.0000 332.2444 332.2444 8.6500e0030.0491 347.0923 Worker 0.0103 7.6800e0030.0961 2.7000e0040.0324 1.6000e0040.0326 8.6000e0031.5000e0048.7500e0030.0000 25.2926 25.2926 6.6000e0046.9000e00425.5137 Total 0.0318 0.7110 0.3808 3.6800e0030.1526 5.1900e0030.1578 0.0433 4.9700e0030.0483 0.0000 357.5370 357.5370 9.3100e0030.0498 372.6060 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 1.3458 0.0000 1.3458 0.3310 0.0000 0.3310 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5724 6.1245 3.9839 0.0103 0.2454 0.2454 0.2257 0.2257 0.0000 902.9654 902.9654 0.2920 0.0000 910.2663 Total 0.5724 6.1245 3.9839 0.0103 1.3458 0.2454 1.5912 0.3310 0.2257 0.5567 0.0000 902.9654 902.9654 0.2920 0.0000 910.2663 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3384

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0215 0.7033 0.2847 3.4100e0030.1202 5.0300e0030.1253 0.0347 4.8200e0030.0395 0.0000 332.2444 332.2444 8.6500e0030.0491 347.0923 Worker 0.0103 7.6800e0030.0961 2.7000e0040.0324 1.6000e0040.0326 8.6000e0031.5000e0048.7500e0030.0000 25.2926 25.2926 6.6000e0046.9000e00425.5137 Total 0.0318 0.7110 0.3808 3.6800e0030.1526 5.1900e0030.1578 0.0433 4.9700e0030.0483 0.0000 357.5370 357.5370 9.3100e0030.0498 372.6060 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 0.0536 0.5503 0.3643 9.0000e0040.0235 0.0235 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 78.2656 78.2656 0.0212 0.0000 78.7943 Total 0.0536 0.5503 0.3643 9.0000e0040.0235 0.0235 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 78.2656 78.2656 0.0212 0.0000 78.7943 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3385

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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9800e0030.1956 0.0792 9.5000e0040.0334 1.4000e0030.0348 9.6500e0031.3400e0030.0110 0.0000 92.4136 92.4136 2.4100e0030.0137 96.5435 Worker 0.1318 0.0984 1.2306 3.4900e0030.4147 2.0900e0030.4168 0.1101 1.9200e0030.1121 0.0000 323.8834 323.8834 8.5000e0038.7900e003326.7147 Total 0.1378 0.2940 1.3098 4.4400e0030.4481 3.4900e0030.4516 0.1198 3.2600e0030.1231 0.0000 416.2970 416.2970 0.0109 0.0225 423.2582 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 0.0536 0.5503 0.3643 9.0000e0040.0235 0.0235 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 78.2655 78.2655 0.0212 0.0000 78.7942 Total 0.0536 0.5503 0.3643 9.0000e0040.0235 0.0235 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 78.2655 78.2655 0.0212 0.0000 78.7942 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3386

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
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9800e0030.1956 0.0792 9.5000e0040.0334 1.4000e0030.0348 9.6500e0031.3400e0030.0110 0.0000 92.4136 92.4136 2.4100e0030.0137 96.5435 Worker 0.1318 0.0984 1.2306 3.4900e0030.4147 2.0900e0030.4168 0.1101 1.9200e0030.1121 0.0000 323.8834 323.8834 8.5000e0038.7900e003326.7147 Total 0.1378 0.2940 1.3098 4.4400e0030.4481 3.4900e0030.4516 0.1198 3.2600e0030.1231 0.0000 416.2970 416.2970 0.0109 0.0225 423.2582 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.6308 6.3730 4.4875 0.0113 0.2646 0.2646 0.2468 0.2468 0.0000 976.7237 976.7237 0.2631 0.0000 983.3006 Total 0.6308 6.3730 4.4875 0.0113 0.2646 0.2646 0.2468 0.2468 0.0000 976.7237 976.7237 0.2631 0.0000 983.3006 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3387

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0729 2.4626 0.9718 0.0117 0.4172 0.0172 0.4344 0.1204 0.0165 0.1369 0.0000 1,137.095 4 1,137.095
4 0.0291 0.1680 1,187.889
8 Worker 1.5292 1.0887 14.3118 0.0423 5.1738 0.0250 5.1988 1.3741 0.0231 1.3972 0.0000 3,954.797 6 3,954.797
6 0.0961 0.1016 3,987.470
3 Total 1.6021 3.5513 15.2836 0.0540 5.5910 0.0422 5.6333 1.4945 0.0395 1.5340 0.0000 5,091.893 1 5,091.893
1 0.1252 0.2696 5,175.360
1 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 0.6308 6.3730 4.4875 0.0113 0.2646 0.2646 0.2468 0.2468 0.0000 976.7226 976.7226 0.2631 0.0000 983.2994 Total 0.6308 6.3730 4.4875 0.0113 0.2646 0.2646 0.2468 0.2468 0.0000 976.7226 976.7226 0.2631 0.0000 983.2994 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3388

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0729 2.4626 0.9718 0.0117 0.4172 0.0172 0.4344 0.1204 0.0165 0.1369 0.0000 1,137.095 4 1,137.095
4 0.0291 0.1680 1,187.889
8 Worker 1.5292 1.0887 14.3118 0.0423 5.1738 0.0250 5.1988 1.3741 0.0231 1.3972 0.0000 3,954.797 6 3,954.797
6 0.0961 0.1016 3,987.470
3 Total 1.6021 3.5513 15.2836 0.0540 5.5910 0.0422 5.6333 1.4945 0.0395 1.5340 0.0000 5,091.893 1 5,091.893
1 0.1252 0.2696 5,175.360
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3097 3.0153 2.3799 6.1000e0030.1229 0.1229 0.1147 0.1147 0.0000 529.2240 529.2240 0.1421 0.0000 532.7756 Total 0.3097 3.0153 2.3799 6.1000e0030.1229 0.1229 0.1147 0.1147 0.0000 529.2240 529.2240 0.1421 0.0000 532.7756 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3389

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0387 1.3266 0.5185 6.2100e0030.2261 9.3100e0030.2354 0.0653 8.9000e0030.0742 0.0000 604.3128 604.3128 0.0153 0.0892 631.2880 Worker 0.7721 0.5264 7.2088 0.0221 2.8041 0.0129 2.8170 0.7447 0.0119 0.7566 0.0000 2,090.909 8 2,090.909
8 0.0470 0.0512 2,107.347
9 Total 0.8108 1.8530 7.7273 0.0283 3.0302 0.0222 3.0525 0.8100 0.0208 0.8308 0.0000 2,695.222 6 2,695.222
6 0.0623 0.1405 2,738.635
9 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 0.3097 3.0153 2.3799 6.1000e0030.1229 0.1229 0.1147 0.1147 0.0000 529.2233 529.2233 0.1421 0.0000 532.7750 Total 0.3097 3.0153 2.3799 6.1000e0030.1229 0.1229 0.1147 0.1147 0.0000 529.2233 529.2233 0.1421 0.0000 532.7750 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3390

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0387 1.3266 0.5185 6.2100e0030.2261 9.3100e0030.2354 0.0653 8.9000e0030.0742 0.0000 604.3128 604.3128 0.0153 0.0892 631.2880 Worker 0.7721 0.5264 7.2088 0.0221 2.8041 0.0129 2.8170 0.7447 0.0119 0.7566 0.0000 2,090.909 8 2,090.909
8 0.0470 0.0512 2,107.347
9 Total 0.8108 1.8530 7.7273 0.0283 3.0302 0.0222 3.0525 0.8100 0.0208 0.8308 0.0000 2,695.222 6 2,695.222
6 0.0623 0.1405 2,738.635
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.6146 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0227 0.1520 0.2400 3.9000e0046.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0030.0000 33.8732 33.8732 1.8500e0030.0000 33.9194 Total 1.6373 0.1520 0.2400 3.9000e0046.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0030.0000 33.8732 33.8732 1.8500e0030.0000 33.9194 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3391

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0383 1.3106 0.5122 6.1400e0030.2234 9.2000e0030.2326 0.0645 8.8000e0030.0733 0.0000 597.0149 597.0149 0.0151 0.0882 623.6643 Worker 0.2163 0.1475 2.0194 6.2000e0030.7855 3.6200e0030.7891 0.2086 3.3300e0030.2120 0.0000 585.7183 585.7183 0.0132 0.0144 590.3231 Total 0.2545 1.4580 2.5316 0.0123 1.0089 0.0128 1.0217 0.2731 0.0121 0.2852 0.0000 1,182.733 2 1,182.733
2 0.0283 0.1025 1,213.987
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.6146 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0227 0.1520 0.2400 3.9000e0046.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0030.0000 33.8731 33.8731 1.8500e0030.0000 33.9193 Total 1.6373 0.1520 0.2400 3.9000e0046.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0036.8300e0030.0000 33.8731 33.8731 1.8500e0030.0000 33.9193 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3392

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0383 1.3106 0.5122 6.1400e0030.2234 9.2000e0030.2326 0.0645 8.8000e0030.0733 0.0000 597.0149 597.0149 0.0151 0.0882 623.6643 Worker 0.2163 0.1475 2.0194 6.2000e0030.7855 3.6200e0030.7891 0.2086 3.3300e0030.2120 0.0000 585.7183 585.7183 0.0132 0.0144 590.3231 Total 0.2545 1.4580 2.5316 0.0123 1.0089 0.0128 1.0217 0.2731 0.0121 0.2852 0.0000 1,182.733 2 1,182.733
2 0.0283 0.1025 1,213.987
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.8195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0115 0.0771 0.1218 2.0000e0043.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0030.0000 17.1919 17.1919 9.4000e0040.0000 17.2154 Total 0.8310 0.0771 0.1218 2.0000e0043.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0030.0000 17.1919 17.1919 9.4000e0040.0000 17.2154 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3393

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0191 0.6602 0.2565 3.0500e0030.1134 4.6400e0030.1180 0.0327 4.4400e0030.0372 0.0000 296.9883 296.9883 7.4400e0030.0438 310.2348 Worker 0.1028 0.0674 0.9598 3.0500e0030.3987 1.7400e0030.4004 0.1059 1.6000e0030.1075 0.0000 290.2842 290.2842 6.0500e0036.8300e003292.4721 Total 0.1219 0.7276 1.2163 6.1000e0030.5121 6.3800e0030.5184 0.1386 6.0400e0030.1447 0.0000 587.2725 587.2725 0.0135 0.0507 602.7069 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 0.8195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0115 0.0771 0.1218 2.0000e0043.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0030.0000 17.1919 17.1919 9.4000e0040.0000 17.2153 Total 0.8310 0.0771 0.1218 2.0000e0043.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0033.4700e0030.0000 17.1919 17.1919 9.4000e0040.0000 17.2153 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3394

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0191 0.6602 0.2565 3.0500e0030.1134 4.6400e0030.1180 0.0327 4.4400e0030.0372 0.0000 296.9883 296.9883 7.4400e0030.0438 310.2348 Worker 0.1028 0.0674 0.9598 3.0500e0030.3987 1.7400e0030.4004 0.1059 1.6000e0030.1075 0.0000 290.2842 290.2842 6.0500e0036.8300e003292.4721 Total 0.1219 0.7276 1.2163 6.1000e0030.5121 6.3800e0030.5184 0.1386 6.0400e0030.1447 0.0000 587.2725 587.2725 0.0135 0.0507 602.7069 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0545 0.5106 0.8674 1.3600e0030.0249 0.0249 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 119.1146 119.1146 0.0385 0.0000 120.0777 Paving 0.0526 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1071 0.5106 0.8674 1.3600e0030.0249 0.0249 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 119.1146 119.1146 0.0385 0.0000 120.0777 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3395

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5746 0.2246 2.6900e0030.0979 4.0300e0030.1020 0.0283 3.8600e0030.0321 0.0000 261.7397 261.7397 6.6300e0030.0387 273.4231 Worker 2.6900e0031.8400e0030.0252 8.0000e0059.7900e0035.0000e0059.8300e0032.6000e0034.0000e0052.6400e0030.0000 7.2970 7.2970 1.6000e0041.8000e0047.3543 Total 0.0195 0.5764 0.2497 2.7700e0030.1077 4.0800e0030.1118 0.0309 3.9000e0030.0348 0.0000 269.0366 269.0366 6.7900e0030.0388 280.7775 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 0.0545 0.5106 0.8674 1.3600e0030.0249 0.0249 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 119.1144 119.1144 0.0385 0.0000 120.0775 Paving 0.0526 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1071 0.5106 0.8674 1.3600e0030.0249 0.0249 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 119.1144 119.1144 0.0385 0.0000 120.0775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3396

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5746 0.2246 2.6900e0030.0979 4.0300e0030.1020 0.0283 3.8600e0030.0321 0.0000 261.7397 261.7397 6.6300e0030.0387 273.4231 Worker 2.6900e0031.8400e0030.0252 8.0000e0059.7900e0035.0000e0059.8300e0032.6000e0034.0000e0052.6400e0030.0000 7.2970 7.2970 1.6000e0041.8000e0047.3543 Total 0.0195 0.5764 0.2497 2.7700e0030.1077 4.0800e0030.1118 0.0309 3.9000e0030.0348 0.0000 269.0366 269.0366 6.7900e0030.0388 280.7775 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0462 0.4334 0.7362 1.1500e0030.0211 0.0211 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 101.0972 101.0972 0.0327 0.0000 101.9147 Paving 0.0447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0909 0.4334 0.7362 1.1500e0030.0211 0.0211 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 101.0972 101.0972 0.0327 0.0000 101.9147 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3397

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0140 0.4840 0.1881 2.2400e0030.0831 3.4000e0030.0865 0.0240 3.2500e0030.0272 0.0000 217.7358 217.7358 5.4600e0030.0321 227.4474 Worker 2.1400e0031.4100e0030.0200 6.0000e0058.3100e0034.0000e0058.3400e0032.2100e0033.0000e0052.2400e0030.0000 6.0476 6.0476 1.3000e0041.4000e0046.0932 Total 0.0161 0.4854 0.2081 2.3000e0030.0914 3.4400e0030.0949 0.0262 3.2800e0030.0295 0.0000 223.7834 223.7834 5.5900e0030.0323 233.5406 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 0.0462 0.4334 0.7362 1.1500e0030.0211 0.0211 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 101.0971 101.0971 0.0327 0.0000 101.9145 Paving 0.0447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0909 0.4334 0.7362 1.1500e0030.0211 0.0211 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 101.0971 101.0971 0.0327 0.0000 101.9145 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3398

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0140 0.4840 0.1881 2.2400e0030.0831 3.4000e0030.0865 0.0240 3.2500e0030.0272 0.0000 217.7358 217.7358 5.4600e0030.0321 227.4474 Worker 2.1400e0031.4100e0030.0200 6.0000e0058.3100e0034.0000e0058.3400e0032.2100e0033.0000e0052.2400e0030.0000 6.0476 6.0476 1.3000e0041.4000e0046.0932 Total 0.0161 0.4854 0.2081 2.3000e0030.0914 3.4400e0030.0949 0.0262 3.2800e0030.0295 0.0000 223.7834 223.7834 5.5900e0030.0323 233.5406 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3399
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
City Park 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 City Park 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 Page 30 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3400
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391

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 Page 31 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3401

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
City Park 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 Page 32 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3402

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
City Park 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 Page 33 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3403

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 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 Page 34 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3404

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
City Park 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 Page 35 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3405
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Unmitigated 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613

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

2.0298 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

15.6935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0116 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Total 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3406

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

2.0298 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

15.6935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0116 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Total 17.7349 1.1400e0030.1258 1.0000e0054.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0044.5000e0040.0000 0.2454 0.2454 6.4000e0040.0000 0.2613 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3407
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
City Park 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 Page 38 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3408

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 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
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3409
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
City Park 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 Page 40 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3410

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 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

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 Page 41 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3411

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 42 Date: 3/13/2022 12:48 PM California Logistics Center (Construction with The Ontario Plan Draft EIR MMs) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3412
California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area (without the High-Cube Fulfillment Center component) is 113.42 acres Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics consistent with Traffic analysis. ITE does not provide Weekend Trip Rates for High-Cube Cold Storage use, this analysis conservatively uses Daily Trip Rate.

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 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 User Defined Industrial 642.37 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3413
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/6/2023 1/1/2023
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.25
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 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 6.9140e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.9140e-003 0.12
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.14
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.19
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3414
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
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 16.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 48.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3415

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.47
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3416
ROG NOx 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

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Energy 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mobile 4.8924 36.5879 52.4814 0.2911 20.3216 0.3941 20.7157 5.5895 0.3752 5.9647 30,693.35 44 30,693.35
44 0.8365 2.8548 31,564.98
25 Offroad 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 23.3431 58.4102 72.6410 0.3955 20.3216 1.5688 21.8904 5.5895 1.5105 7.0999 0.0000 46,319.03 48 46,319.03
48 2.6349 3.0511 47,294.13
74 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3417

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Energy 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mobile 4.8924 36.5879 52.4814 0.2911 20.3216 0.3941 20.7157 5.5895 0.3752 5.9647 30,693.35 44 30,693.35
44 0.8365 2.8548 31,564.98
25 Offroad 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 23.3431 58.4102 72.6410 0.3955 20.3216 1.5688 21.8904 5.5895 1.5105 7.0999 0.0000 46,319.03 48 46,319.03
48 2.6349 3.0511 47,294.13
74 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 1/2/2023 1/1/2023 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 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3418

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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

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 Paving: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3419

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3420

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3421
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.8924 36.5879 52.4814 0.2911 20.3216 0.3941 20.7157 5.5895 0.3752 5.9647 30,693.35 44 30,693.35
44 0.8365 2.8548 31,564.98
25 Unmitigated 4.8924 36.5879 52.4814 0.2911 20.3216 0.3941 20.7157 5.5895 0.3752 5.9647 30,693.35 44 30,693.35
44 0.8365 2.8548 31,564.98
25 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
City Park 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 1,071.98 1,071.98 1071.98 4,594,219 4,594,219 User Defined Industrial 303.97 303.97 303.97 4,425,782 4,425,782 Total 1,375.95 1,375.95 1,375.95 9,020,001 9,020,001
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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3422
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.584900 0.060600 0.186200 0.141900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.026400 0.000000 0.000000 User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.438200 0.121000 0.190800 0.250000 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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3423

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
91040.3 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 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 Total 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3424

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

91.0403 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 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 Total 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3425
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Unmitigated 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056

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

1.8776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

13.9179 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0646 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Total 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3426

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

1.8776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

13.9179 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0646 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Total 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 16 4.00 365 200 0.37 CNG
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3427

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 lb/day lb/day
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes

1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 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 Page 16 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:45 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3428
California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area (without the High-Cube Fulfillment Center component) is 113.42 acres Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics consistent with Traffic analysis. ITE does not provide Weekend Trip Rates for High-Cube Cold Storage use, this analysis conservatively uses Daily Trip Rate.

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 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 User Defined Industrial 642.37 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3429
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/6/2023 1/1/2023
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.25
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 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 6.9140e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.9140e-003 0.12
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.14
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.19
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3430
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
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 16.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 48.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3431

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.47
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3432
ROG NOx 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

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Energy 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mobile 4.4374 38.4386 47.8226 0.2842 20.3216 0.3942 20.7158 5.5895 0.3754 5.9648 29,962.73 40 29,962.73
40 0.8425 2.8711 30,839.37
49 Offroad 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 22.8881 60.2609 67.9822 0.3885 20.3216 1.5689 21.8905 5.5895 1.5106 7.1001 0.0000 45,588.41 45 45,588.41
45 2.6409 3.0674 46,568.52
98 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3433

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Energy 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mobile 4.4374 38.4386 47.8226 0.2842 20.3216 0.3942 20.7158 5.5895 0.3754 5.9648 29,962.73 40 29,962.73
40 0.8425 2.8711 30,839.37
49 Offroad 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 22.8881 60.2609 67.9822 0.3885 20.3216 1.5689 21.8905 5.5895 1.5106 7.1001 0.0000 45,588.41 45 45,588.41
45 2.6409 3.0674 46,568.52
98 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 1/2/2023 1/1/2023 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 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3434

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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

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 Paving: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3435

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3436

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3437
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.4374 38.4386 47.8226 0.2842 20.3216 0.3942 20.7158 5.5895 0.3754 5.9648 29,962.73 40 29,962.73
40 0.8425 2.8711 30,839.37
49 Unmitigated 4.4374 38.4386 47.8226 0.2842 20.3216 0.3942 20.7158 5.5895 0.3754 5.9648 29,962.73 40 29,962.73
40 0.8425 2.8711 30,839.37
49 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
City Park 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 1,071.98 1,071.98 1071.98 4,594,219 4,594,219 User Defined Industrial 303.97 303.97 303.97 4,425,782 4,425,782 Total 1,375.95 1,375.95 1,375.95 9,020,001 9,020,001
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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3438
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.584900 0.060600 0.186200 0.141900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.026400 0.000000 0.000000 User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.438200 0.121000 0.190800 0.250000 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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3439

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
91040.3 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 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 Total 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3440

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 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 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 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

91.0403 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 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 Total 0.9818 8.9255 7.4974 0.0536 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 0.6783 10,710.61 94 10,710.61
94 0.2053 0.1964 10,774.26
72 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3441
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Unmitigated 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056

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

1.8776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

13.9179 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0646 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Total 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3442

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

1.8776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

13.9179 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0646 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Total 15.8601 6.3600e0030.7015 5.0000e0052.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0032.4900e0031.5075 1.5075 3.9200e0031.6056 Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 16 4.00 365 200 0.37 CNG
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3443

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 lb/day lb/day
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes

1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 Total 1.6088 12.8904 11.9607 0.0508 0.4939 0.4939 0.4544 0.4544 0.0000 4,913.553 6 4,913.553
6 1.5891 4,953.282
1 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 Page 16 of 16 Date: 1/20/2022 11:42 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3444
California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project area (without the High-Cube Fulfillment Center component) is 113.42 acres Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics consistent with Traffic analysis. ITE does not provide Weekend Trip Rates for High-Cube Cold Storage use, this analysis conservatively uses Daily Trip Rate.

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 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 642.37 1000sqft 14.75 642,368.00 0 User Defined Industrial 642.37 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0 Parking Lot 3,403.00 Space 24.30 1,054,353.00 0
City Park 24.41 Acre 24.41 1,063,403.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2,176.19 1000sqft 49.96 2,176,187.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3445
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/6/2023 1/1/2023
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.25
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 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 6.9140e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.9140e-003 0.12
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.14
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.19
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3446
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,361,200.00 1,054,353.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,063,299.60 1,063,403.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,176,190.00 2,176,187.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 30.63 24.30
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 16.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 48.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 19.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 33.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 6.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 66.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3447

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 1.67
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.47
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3448
ROG NOx 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) Highest

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 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Energy 0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 6,377.324 6 6,377.324
6 0.4226 0.0796 6,411.613
8 Mobile 0.8048 7.0899 8.9754 0.0519 3.6332 0.0716 3.7048 1.0012 0.0682 1.0695 0.0000 4,963.919 6 4,963.919
6 0.1399 0.4748 5,108.891
7 Offroad 0.2936 2.3525 2.1828 9.2700e0030.0901 0.0901 0.0829 0.0829 0.0000 813.4929 813.4929 0.2631 0.0000 820.0704 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 122.9983 0.0000 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 47.1275 400.3342 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973 Total 4.1683 11.0721 12.6142 0.0709 3.6332 0.2859 3.9191 1.0012 0.2753 1.2765 170.1258 12,555.24 23 12,725.36
80 12.9692 0.6728 13,250.07
84 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3449

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 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Energy 0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 6,377.324 6 6,377.324
6 0.4226 0.0796 6,411.613
8 Mobile 0.8048 7.0899 8.9754 0.0519 3.6332 0.0716 3.7048 1.0012 0.0682 1.0695 0.0000 4,963.919 6 4,963.919
6 0.1399 0.4748 5,108.891
7 Offroad 0.2936 2.3525 2.1828 9.2700e0030.0901 0.0901 0.0829 0.0829 0.0000 813.4929 813.4929 0.2631 0.0000 820.0704 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 122.9983 0.0000 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 47.1275 400.3342 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973 Total 4.1683 11.0721 12.6142 0.0709 3.6332 0.2859 3.9191 1.0012 0.2753 1.2765 170.1258 12,555.24 23 12,725.36
80 12.9692 0.6728 13,250.07
84 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 1/2/2023 1/1/2023 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 Page 6 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3450

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: 74.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3451

3.2 Demolition - 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 8 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3452

3.2 Demolition - 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 9 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3453
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 0.8048 7.0899 8.9754 0.0519 3.6332 0.0716 3.7048 1.0012 0.0682 1.0695 0.0000 4,963.919 6 4,963.919
6 0.1399 0.4748 5,108.891
7 Unmitigated 0.8048 7.0899 8.9754 0.0519 3.6332 0.0716 3.7048 1.0012 0.0682 1.0695 0.0000 4,963.919 6 4,963.919
6 0.1399 0.4748 5,108.891
7 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
City Park 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 1,071.98 1,071.98 1071.98 4,594,219 4,594,219 User Defined Industrial 303.97 303.97 303.97 4,425,782 4,425,782 Total 1,375.95 1,375.95 1,375.95 9,020,001 9,020,001
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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
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
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3454
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 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 City Park 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Parking Lot 0.545300 0.056532 0.173573 0.132281 0.025040 0.006914 0.012148 0.017464 0.000548 0.000245 0.024607 0.000958 0.004391 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.584900 0.060600 0.186200 0.141900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.026400 0.000000 0.000000 User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.438200 0.121000 0.190800 0.250000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3455
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 4,604.061
4 4,604.061
4 0.3886 0.0471 4,627.813
0 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4,604.061
4 4,604.061
4 0.3886 0.0471 4,627.813
0 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3456

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
City Park 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

3.32297e
+007

0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 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 0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3457

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
City Park 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

3.32297e
+007

0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 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 0.1792 1.6289 1.3683 9.7700e0030.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.1238 0.0000 1,773.263 2 1,773.263
2 0.0340 0.0325 1,783.800
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3458

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 369024 65.4447 5.5200e0036.7000e00465.7823 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.55919e
+007
4,538.616
7 0.3831 0.0464 4,562.030
7 User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4,604.061
4 0.3886 0.0471 4,627.813
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3459

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
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 369024 65.4447 5.5200e0036.7000e00465.7823 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.55919e
+007
4,538.616
7 0.3831 0.0464 4,562.030
7 User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4,604.061
4 0.3886 0.0471 4,627.813
0 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3460
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Unmitigated 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821

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

0.3427 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.5400 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.0700e0037.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Total 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3461

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.3427 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.5400 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.0700e0037.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Total 2.8908 7.9000e0040.0877 1.0000e0053.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0043.1000e0040.0000 0.1710 0.1710 4.4000e0040.0000 0.1821 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3462
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973
Unmitigated 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

29.0841

57.3046 4.8400e0035.9000e00457.6002
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
148.548 /
0 390.1571 4.8694 0.1178 546.9971
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3463

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

29.0841

57.3046 4.8400e0035.9000e00457.6002
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
148.548 /
0 390.1571 4.8694 0.1178 546.9971
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 447.4616 4.8742 0.1184 604.5973
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3464
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231
Unmitigated 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 2.1 0.4263 0.0252 0.0000 1.0561
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
603.83 122.5720 7.2438 0.0000 303.6670
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3465

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 2.1 0.4263 0.0252 0.0000 1.0561
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
603.83 122.5720 7.2438 0.0000 303.6670
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 122.9983 7.2690 0.0000 304.7231
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 16 4.00 365 200 0.37 CNG
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3466

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

0.2936 2.3525 2.1828 9.2700e0030.0901 0.0901 0.0829 0.0829 0.0000 813.4929 813.4929 0.2631 0.0000 820.0704 Total 0.2936 2.3525 2.1828 9.2700e0030.0901 0.0901 0.0829 0.0829 0.0000 813.4929 813.4929 0.2631 0.0000 820.0704 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 Page 23 of 23 Date: 1/20/2022 11:46 AM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Cold Storage Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3467
California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics consistent with Traffic analysis. ITE does not provide Weekend Trip Rates for High-Cube Fulfillment use, this analysis conservatively uses Daily Trip Rate.

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 3,640.08 1000sqft 83.56 3,640,083.00 0 User Defined Industrial 3,640.08 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/19/2023 1/1/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3468
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.62
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 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 6.9140e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.9140e-003 0.04
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.14
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.21
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,640,080.00 3,640,083.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3469

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.23
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.23
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3470

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3471

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Energy 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Mobile 22.5582 142.1172 246.8887 1.1767 81.6601 1.6361 83.2962 22.1240 1.5572 23.6812 125,540.3 349
125,540.3
349

4.7259 12.9404 129,514.7
302
Total 104.1610 144.0892 249.2809 1.1886 81.6601 1.7881 83.4482 22.1240 1.7092 23.8332 127,900.2 092
127,900.2
092

4.7752 12.9837 131,888.7
222
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Energy 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Mobile 22.5582 142.1172 246.8887 1.1767 81.6601 1.6361 83.2962 22.1240 1.5572 23.6812 125,540.3 349
125,540.3
349

4.7259 12.9404 129,514.7
302
Total 104.1610 144.0892 249.2809 1.1886 81.6601 1.7881 83.4482 22.1240 1.7092 23.8332 127,900.2 092
127,900.2
092

4.7752 12.9837 131,888.7
222
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3472

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/2/2023 1/1/2023 5 0
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 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: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3473

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 7 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3474

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 8 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3475
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 22.5582 142.1172 246.8887 1.1767 81.6601 1.6361 83.2962 22.1240 1.5572 23.6812 125,540.3 349
125,540.3
349

4.7259 12.9404 129,514.7
302
Unmitigated 22.5582 142.1172 246.8887 1.1767 81.6601 1.6361 83.2962 22.1240 1.5572 23.6812 125,540.3 349
125,540.3
349

4.7259 12.9404 129,514.7
302

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
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 5,756.06 5,756.06 5756.06 24,668,857 24,668,857 User Defined Industrial 848.14 848.14 848.14 12,348,909 12,348,909 Total 6,604.20 6,604.20 6,604.20 37,017,766 37,017,766
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

0.584900 0.060600 0.186200 0.141900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.026400 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3476
User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.133100 0.036700 0.209900 0.620300 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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3477

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
20045.4 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 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 Total 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

20.0454 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 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 Total 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3478

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Unmitigated 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969

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

9.2448 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

72.0736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0683 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Total 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3479

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

9.2448 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

72.0736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0683 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Total 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3480

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:09 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3481
California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Operations run only
Off-road Equipment - Operations run only
Vehicle Trips - Trip characteristics consistent with Traffic analysis. ITE does not provide Weekend Trip Rates for High-Cube Fulfillment use, this analysis conservatively uses Daily Trip Rate.

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 3,640.08 1000sqft 83.56 3,640,083.00 0 User Defined Industrial 3,640.08 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/19/2023 1/1/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3482
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.62
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.58
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 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 6.9140e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.9140e-003 0.04
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.03
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.14
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 4.3910e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.21
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.5800e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.4500e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,640,080.00 3,640,083.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3483

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.23
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.23
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 1.58
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3484

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3485

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Energy 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Mobile 20.0979 149.5221 222.3718 1.1395 81.6601 1.6371 83.2972 22.1240 1.5581 23.6821 121,628.3 245
121,628.3
245

4.7606 13.0046 125,622.6
949
Total 101.7008 151.4940 224.7640 1.1514 81.6601 1.7891 83.4492 22.1240 1.7101 23.8341 123,988.1 987
123,988.1
987

4.8099 13.0478 127,996.6
869
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 81.3867 6.7200e0030.7414 6.0000e0052.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0032.6400e0031.5933 1.5933 4.1400e0031.6969 Energy 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Mobile 20.0979 149.5221 222.3718 1.1395 81.6601 1.6371 83.2972 22.1240 1.5581 23.6821 121,628.3 245
121,628.3
245

4.7606 13.0046 125,622.6
949
Total 101.7008 151.4940 224.7640 1.1514 81.6601 1.7891 83.4492 22.1240 1.7101 23.8341 123,988.1 987
123,988.1
987

4.8099 13.0478 127,996.6
869
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3486

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/2/2023 1/1/2023 5 0
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 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: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3487

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 7 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3488

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 Page 8 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3489
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 20.0979 149.5221 222.3718 1.1395 81.6601 1.6371 83.2972 22.1240 1.5581 23.6821 121,628.3 245
121,628.3
245

4.7606 13.0046 125,622.6
949
Unmitigated 20.0979 149.5221 222.3718 1.1395 81.6601 1.6371 83.2972 22.1240 1.5581 23.6821 121,628.3 245
121,628.3
245

4.7606 13.0046 125,622.6
949

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
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 5,756.06 5,756.06 5756.06 24,668,857 24,668,857 User Defined Industrial 848.14 848.14 848.14 12,348,909 12,348,909 Total 6,604.20 6,604.20 6,604.20 37,017,766 37,017,766
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

0.584900 0.060600 0.186200 0.141900 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.026400 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3490
User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.133100 0.036700 0.209900 0.620300 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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 14 Date: 1/20/2022 12:08 PM California Logistics Center (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3491

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
20045.4 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 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 Total 0.2162 1.9652 1.6508 0.0118 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 0.1494 2,358.281 0 2,358.281
0 0.0452 0.0432 2,372.295
1 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail