Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 2 of 5)

Program/Activity 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 TOTAL
Affordable Housing Units owned and operated by
Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino/Housing Partners I, Inc.
214 214 428
Project Gateway (Housing Authority of the County of
San Bernardino/San Bernardino County Department of
Behavioral Health)
12 13 25
TOTAL 1,012 1,008 2,020

F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Please note, unlike the other strategies, most of the Community Development goals do not have annual goals, rather the goal is the completion of the project. Therefore, Priority 1 and 2 are not discussed in this section since these priorities in general do not have annual goals.

Priority 3: Improve public service programs available to serve lower- and moderate-income residents.

The City implemented and funded a variety of public service activities to improve the condition of low-income neighborhoods and increase the quality of life throughout the City.

The primary target group of the public service activities was for crime prevention and youth activities. The City established a five-year goal to assist 10,350 persons and youth through public service activities.

Program/Activity
Five Year
Goals 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 TOTAL
Child Care Subsidies (Ontario-
Montclair YMCA) 500 51 34 85
TOTAL 500 51 34 85

G. INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS

As part of the City’s evaluation of the delivery of affordable housing programs and services, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income renter and owner households assisted during the reporting period is examined. In the table below is the income breakdown of the unduplicated persons served through affordable housing. It is important to note that many programs do not keep statistics regarding the number of extremely low- income persons served.

Program/Project
Extremely Low-
Income
(30% MFI)
Very Low-
Income
(50% MFI)
Low/Mod
Income
(80% MFI)

Total
Renter Households
Low/Mod Assisted Housing
Developments
49 558 532 1,139
HOME TBRA Program 23 15 0 38
Landlord/Tenant Housing Mediation 251 266 201 718
DRAFT
127

CITY OF ONTARIO
FY 2022-23 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 09/19/2023

Page 55 of 58 ends

Program/Project
Extremely Low-
Income
(30% MFI)
Very Low-
Income
(50% MFI)
Low/Mod
Income
(80% MFI)

Total
Ontario Housing Authority/ Housing
Authority of the County of San
Bernardino (Project Gateway)
13 0 0 13
ESG-CV Emergency Rent and Utility
Assistance Program
76 34 0 0
SUBTOTAL 712 873 733 2,018
Owner–Occupied Households
Conservation Home Improvement
Program (CHIP Loan)
0 2 0 2
NPHS Homeownership Services 273
SUBTOTAL 0 2 0 275
Homeless Persons
Assisi House and Aftercare Services
Program
27 0 0 27
Ontario Access Center 992 0 0 992
Services for Victims of Domestic
Violence and Their Children
38 10 5 53
Family Stabilization Program at Sova
Program Center
628 118 39 1,857
SUBTOTAL 1,685 128 44 1,857
Special Needs and Other Public Service Activities
Fair Housing* 38 29 25 92
Senior Services 11 10 13 34
Child Care Subsidies 5 8 0 13
SUBTOTAL 54 47 38 139
TOTAL 2,151 1,050 815 4,016
*Fair Housing is reported by households.

H. TIMELINESS

The City complied with the timeliness requirement of 1.5 before April 30, 2022.

To facilitate the City’s annual compliance with the timeliness requirement, the City continually monitors the progress of all projects.

DRAFT
128

CITY OF ONTARIO
FY 2022-23 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 09/19/2023

Page 56 of 58 ends

VII. OTHER ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN

A. ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY

The City attempts to minimize displacement of all CDBG, HOME, and ESG funded activities.

To minimize the impact of displacement, the City contracts with relocation firms to assist households and businesses, as needed. The relocation consultants prepare relocation plans and information notices. In addition, the consultants assist households and businesses in relocating to a new site that will accommodate their needs and preferences. Assistance includes referrals, transportation, and financial assistance.

The City followed its residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan in connection with activities assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. This plan complies with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. During this reporting period, the one-for-one replacement requirement was not triggered.

B. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

The City continued working with various County departments and local nonprofit organizations in addressing identified housing needs. Many examples of intergovernmental cooperation are documented within this report. The City also provided certifications for consistency for agencies applying for additional HUD funds as appropriate.

C. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY

The City included an anti-poverty strategy within the FY 2020-24 Consolidated Plan. The City continues to aggressively implement programs and activities, which will generate jobs and tax revenue to reduce the number of Ontario residents below the poverty level.

D. EFFORTS TO ADDRESS OBSTACLES TO MEETING UNDERSERVED NEEDS

The City has taken several steps to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. Program brochures are translated into Spanish and translation services are provided. Staff regularly attends community events to promote City programs to the community and non-profit organizations that serve low- and moderate-income populations.

DRAFT
129

CITY OF ONTARIO
FY 2022-23 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 09/19/2023

Page 57 of 58 ends

VIII. ADDITIONAL CDBG REQUIRED NARRATIVES

A. ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CDBG FUNDS

The City utilized the CDBG funds to address high priority needs/objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan.

Overall, 100% of CDBG expenditures were used to benefit low- and moderate-income households.

B. CDBG LOANS AND OTHER RECEIVABLES

The current principal balance of the CDBG loans outstanding as of June 30, 2022 was $3,898,114.35. The City had no float funded activities. The City had no parcels acquired or improved with CDBG funds that were available for sale during FY 2022-23. Finally, the City had no lump sum agreements during FY 2022-23.

IX. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS

The FY 2022-23 CAPER was available for public review from September 1, 202 2 through September 18, 2023. In addition, a public hearing was conducted on September 19, 2023 to receive public comments regarding the FY 2022-23 CAPER.

X. HUD REPORTS

In accordance with HUD regulations, the City has prepared and made available for public review the following reports generated by the Integrated Disbursement and Information System. These reports are presented as attachments to the CAPER.

1. Summary of Activities (C04PR03) – lists each CDBG activity, which was open during a program year. For each activity, the report shows the status, accomplishments, program year narrative and program year expenditures. For each activity, the report also shows the activity code, regulation cite and characteristics of the beneficiaries.

2. CDBG Financial Summary Report (C04PR26) – shows the commitment of funds and expenditures the grantee has made for a specified program year. The expenditures are summarized to determine the relevant indicators for planning/administration, public service activities, and economic development.

This report also contains program year information on meeting HUD’s statutory requirements of serving low- and moderate-income households.

3. CDBG-CV Financial Summary Report (C04PR26 -CV) – shows the commitment of funds and expenditures the grantee has made for a spe cified DRAFT
130

CITY OF ONTARIO
FY 2022-23 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 09/19/2023

Page 58 of 58 ends

program year. The expenditures are summarized to determine the relevant indicators for planning/administration, public service activities, and economic development. This report also contains program year information on meeting HUD’s statutory requir ements of serving low - and moderate -income households.

HOME REPORTS

3. Status of HOME Activities (C04PR22) – provides status of HOME activities for all fiscal years. This report shows funds committed to each activity and disbursed dollar amounts.

4. Status of HOME Grants (C04PR27) – provides a status of HOME grants for each fiscal year.

5. HOME Match Report (HUD-40107-A) – provides match contribution information for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

6. HOME Annual Performance Report (HUD-40107) – provides Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) and Women Business Enterprises (WBE) contracting information for Fiscal Year 2021-22. In addition, this report provides information on HOME program income received during the reporting period.

ESG REPORTS

7. ESG CAPER Report – provides information on performance measures for ESG funded activities.

DRAFT
131
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Lorena Mejia
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 17
SUBJECT:

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PDEV21-035, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 59,984 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SULTANA AVENUE AND BELMONT STREET (APNS: 1049-491-01, 1049- 491-02, AND 1049-491-03)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
September 19, 2023
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider and adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-035) and denying the appeal.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed Development Plan will facilitate the development of an industrial building totaling 59,984 square feet. This will result in a one-time payment to the City for permitting and plan check fees, development impact fees, as well as increase in on-going property tax revenue for the City.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On October 12, 2021, the Applicant, Chartwell Real Estate Development, submitted a Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-035) to construct one industrial building totaling 59,984 square feet on 3.15 gross acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street, within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district, hereinafter referred to as “Project” or “Application”.

The 59,984 square foot, rectangular-shaped industrial building is centrally located on the site, with the front of the building facing west, along the street frontage of Sultana Avenue, and two oﬃce entries located at the northwest and southwest corners of the building. The primary oﬀ-street automobile parking area is located on the west side of the building. The parking lot will serve oﬃce employees and visitors through a driveway located oﬀ Belmont Street. A yard area, designed for tractor-trailer parking, truck maneuvering, loading activities and outdoor staging, is located on the 132
east side of the proposed building. The yard area will be screened from public view by a 14-foot- high concrete tilt-up wall that will match the architecture of the building. Truck access, into the yard area, will be taken from Belmont Street only. To eliminate potential truck traﬃc within the existing surrounding residential neighborhood, trucks exiting/entering the site on Belmont Street will be required to connect to Mission Boulevard, a designated City truck route, via Monterey Avenue. The building will be of concrete tilt-up construction and integrates a contemporary architectural design theme, incorporating enhanced elements and treatments at oﬃce entries and along street facing elevations. Additionally, the Project includes street widening on Phillips Street, right-of-way improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway) and street trees. The proposed on-site and oﬀ- site landscape improvements will assist in creating a walkable, safe area for pedestrians to access the Project site. The full project description is provided in the July 25, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report for the Project.

On June 19, 2023, the Development Advisory Board conducted a hearing to consider the Application and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Project, subject to conditions. On July 25, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Application and the Development Advisory Board’s recommendation. After conducting a public hearing and receiving all public correspondence and testimony, the Planning Commission considered the Project and unanimously voted (6-0) to adopt Resolution No. PC23-064, approving the Development Plan.

APPEAL:

On August 4, 2023, Celina Lopez (Appellant) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve File No. PDEV21-035. A copy of the Appeal application and Appellant’s statement are included collectively as Exhibit A of this report. An appeal of the Planning Commission action is limited to those matters raised during the Public Hearing; the appeal cannot consider any matter that was not raised during the hearing. The Appellant's appeal includes irrelevant and relevant statements, with no evidence to support their grounds for appeal.

Staﬀ has reviewed the Appellant’s appeal and has provided responses below to the appeal statements that Staff believes are relevant to the Project:

Appellant Issue No. 1:

Notices. The Appellant claims that public notices were vague and held a year prior to the July 25, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting. Although, one Community Meeting was held for the Project there should have been additional meetings and outreach.

Staff Response:

The noticing of the Project was done in compliance with the noticing requirements of State law and the Ontario Development Code. Division 2:03 – Public Hearing, Section 2.03.010; Public Hearing Notiﬁcation, which requires that all owners of real property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing. In this case, public hearing notices were sent out on July 14, 2023, to all property owners and residents (tenants) beyond 500 feet of the Project (322 notices in total). To ensure community input from the surrounding residents, notices were mailed to owners and residents in both English and Spanish.

Appellants’ claim that notices for the community meeting were vague and more than a year in advance of the public hearing. The purpose of the community meeting is to introduce the Project to the community and receive input on the project. The notice of the meeting included an invitation to 133
learn about the Project, a location map of the Project, a site plan for the Project, a description indicating that the proposed Project was for a 59,984 square foot industrial building, and the time, date and location of the meeting. With over 320 notices sent out, one resident attended the community meeting and had questions regarding the proposed project and site improvements and generally spoke in favor of the proposed Project. Staﬀ also received two e-mails from local property owners, one resident inquiring about the proposed project and the second e-mail did not support the proposed project.

At the Planning Commission on July 27, 2023, four individuals spoke in opposition to the Project.

Appellant Issue No. 2:

Safety. The Appellant claims that residents have concerns regarding the Project’s impact to traffic.

Staff Response:

The Project site is currently unimproved and the street frontage along Phillips Street lacks a sidewalk, parkway, and curb and gutter. The construction of the Project will result in the improvements for pedestrian and vehicle safety and access within the surrounding community. For all new developments, the City requires street frontage improvements (sidewalk, landscape parkway, curb/gutter, streetlights, and street widening) to be constructed where they are lacking.

The Project is required to widen Phillips Street and construct and improve the sidewalk and landscape parkways along Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street, and Belmont Street. In addition, the Project will only be accessed from Belmont Street. No access will be taken from either Sultana Avenue or Phillips Street. The Project has been conditioned and designed to require all large trucks entering and exiting the site to use Monterey Avenue by way of Belmont Street. The truck routing has been designed to avoid through truck traﬃc within the residential neighborhoods, Sultana Avenue north to Mission Avenue and Belmont Street east to Campus Avenue. Trucks will not be allowed to use Sultana Avenue or Phillips Street. Further, the subject site is presently vacant, and any new development will generate new vehicle trips over what is existing. The Engineering Department’s Traﬃc Division has reviewed the Project for access and circulation and does not anticipate traﬃc to increase beyond the traﬃc that currently exists on Sultana Avenue, Belmont Street, Phillips Street, and the surrounding areas.

Furthermore, a Trip Generation and VMT Assessment was completed by Gandini (Dated: February 9, 2022) and concluded that Project is forecast to generate approximately 159 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, including 9 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 15 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. To arrive at the total PCEs, the 36 truck trips are converted to PCE trips by multiplying 2.56 trips per truck or 92 PCEs. The 92 PCE trips are then added to the 67 automobile trips, providing the total PCE of 159 trips. The proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with Level of Service analysis based on the County-established screening criteria as used by the City of Ontario. The proposed project meets the County- established criteria for project type screening results in a less than signiﬁcant VMT impact. In comparison, a typical single-family home averages 9.4 vehicle trips per day, if the Project site was developed with single family homes the site would accommodate up to 15 units and generate 141 trips per day and up to 282 trips per day if each property developed an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Appellant Issue No. 3:

Health. The Appellant claims the Project contradicts and aﬀects the current grants the City of Ontario has received from Kaiser Permanente (Ontario HEAL Zone), Strategic 134
Growth Council (Ontario Together Transformative Climate Communities Project) and Caltrans (Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan).

Staff Response:

The proposed project is within active grant and planning eﬀorts including the Kaiser Permanente HEAL Grant, Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Grant, and Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan with each eﬀort in support of improving overall quality of life. The Kaiser Permanente HEAL Grant funding is focused speciﬁcally on achieving long-term sustainable reductions in obesity and related chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease. The Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Grant is funded through the state Cap-and-Trade program for community supported projects including sustainable housing, transportation, and infrastructure that are targeted to reduce greenhouse gases, improve health, and support economic and health beneﬁts in California’s most disadvantaged communities. The Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan has been developed to identify and prioritize the walking, biking, access to transit, and safe routes to school needs in Ontario. Community members provide input that will help to guide the development of the plan. The intent is to engage community members in the plan-making process, collect and analyze data, evaluate, and forecast demand, and develop Safe Routes to School (SRTS), pedestrian, and bicycle improvement recommendations. City Staﬀ has worked with the community to secure program funding in support of park improvements, community gardens, education and physical activity classes, civic engagement training, walk audits, partnerships with the Police Department’s Neighborhood Watch program, and SRTS Active Transportation grants. It should be noted that these programs have no standing as to local land use regulations; however, the Project does aﬀect the spirit of the Grants’ intent to encourage the community to participate in shared decisions that impact the neighborhood’s quality of life. In addition, the Project will be required to widen Philips Street and construct and improve the sidewalk and landscape parkways along Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street and Belmont Street, which will improve connectivity and walkability of the neighborhood. Additionally, no grant funds are being used for the Project.

Appellant Issue No. 4:

Air Quality. The Appellant claims that residents are concerned with air quality and pollution generated from the trucks and vehicles. The project was exempt from CEQA, and other environmental reports and proper environmental assessments were not completed.

Staﬀ Response:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance for the level of environmental review required for projects in the State. CEQA provides two diﬀerent types of exemptions - statutory and categorical. Statutory exemptions are those projects identiﬁed by the State as not requiring environmental review. Categorical exemptions apply to projects that meet certain criteria established by the State. In the case of the Application, it can be considered categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-ﬁll Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines if the Project meets the following:

a
.

The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; b
.

The proposed development occurs within city limits;
c
.

The proposed site is less than ﬁve acres in size and is substantially surrounded by urban land uses;
d
.

The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; 135
e
.

Approval of the Project would not result in any signiﬁcant eﬀects relating to traﬃc, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
f
.

The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

In response to these ﬁndings, Staﬀ ﬁnds that the application is consistent with the Industrial land use designation and the IL (Light Industrial) zoning designation. The Application is proposed on a site within the City that is 3.15 acres in area, is surrounded by existing development, and served by utilities and public services. The site is disturbed and provides no habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The storing of hazardous chemicals that could impact water quality are prohibited in the IL zone and the site development must comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, preventing the runoﬀ of untreated water into the storm drain system. Traﬃc impacts were summarized in Appellant Issue No. 2, above. Air quality and noise studies were completed and are summarized below.

An Air Quality Analysis, Energy Analysis, Global Climate Change Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was completed by Gandini (Dated: February 24, 2022). The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing single-family residential located approximately 50 feet to the south (across Phillips Street), 60 feet to the west (across Sultana Avenue), and 85 feet to the east (across the Union Paciﬁc rail line and Monterey Street). Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in signiﬁcant impacts based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional and local thresholds of signiﬁcance. The Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts will not result in signiﬁcant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of signiﬁcance. Also, the Project site is currently located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Appellant Issue No. 5:

Noise. The Appellant claims that residents are concerned with noise levels generated by trucks and future tenants.

Staﬀ Response:

A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Gandini (Dated: March 4, 2022) and concluded that noise impacts would be less than signiﬁcant. Construction noise sources are regulated within Section 5.29-09 of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code which allows construction activities to take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM weekends, excluding federal holidays. The Project includes the construction of 14-foot-high concrete screen walls around the loading/unloading area of the proposed warehouse. The peak hour operational noise levels would range between 34 to 42 A-weighted decibel (dBA) to the nearest residential property lines from the project site. Therefore, project operational noise will not exceed either the exterior daytime residential standard of 65 dBA or the nighttime residential standard of 45 dBA as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts associated with project operational noise would be less than signiﬁcant. Also, the Project site is located within the 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone of Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a warehouse use is considered a compatible use within ONT’s 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone. 136

Appellant Issue No. 6:

Zoning. The Appellant claims that residents would like the City Council to consider re-zoning the property to low-density residential that would eliminate any industrial or warehouses uses in close proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses.

Staﬀ Response:

City records show that the project site has been zoned industrial since 1947. The Policy Plan (General Plan) land use designations surrounding the site are Industrial to the north, Low Density Residential/Industrial Overlay to the east, Low Density Residential to the south, and Low Medium Density Residential to the west. The project site is zoned IL (Light Industrial). The IL zoning district was established to accommodate lighter manufacturing and assembly activities, storage and warehousing activities, and other similar uses developed at a maximum intensity of

0.55 FAR. This zoning district is typically located within 500 feet of residentially zoned properties, public parks and schools, and mixed-use properties having a residential component. The IL district is intended to serve as a buﬀer between residentially zoned areas and heavier industrial zoning districts. Allowed uses are expected to have little or no impacts on nearby residential uses with regard to noise, odor, or hazards. The IL zoning district is consistent with, and implements, the Industrial land use designations of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan.

Land uses around the Ontario International Airport (ONT) are further regulated by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an ALUCP be prepared for all public use airports in the State and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Project site and surrounding properties are located within the 65-70 dB CNEL noise impact zone of ONT. The ALUCP identiﬁes single family residences, some multi-family residences, and local parks as incompatible land uses and, as such, are not allowed.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider all public testimony and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-035) and deny the appeal. 137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145

Case Planner: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner

Hearing Body Date Decision Action
Planning Director
Approval:

DAB 6/19/2021 Approval Recommend
PC 7/25/2021 Final
Submittal Date: 10/12/2021 CC

FILE NO.: PDEV21-035

SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider a Development Plan to construct a 59,984 square foot industrial building on 3.15 gross acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street, within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. (APN(s):
1049-491-01, 1049-491-02 and 1049 -491-03); submitted by Chartwell Real Estate Development.

PROPERTY OWNER: Chartwell Real Estate Development

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission approve File No. PDEV21-035, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolution, and subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached resolution as "Attachment A.”

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site is comprised of 3.15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street , within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district (see Figure 1: Project Location ). Land uses surrounding the Project site include an industrial steel supplier to the north, Southern Pacific Railroad to the east and single-family residential to the south and west. The Project site is vacant sloping from the northwest corner towards the southeast corner with an approximate 4-foot differential in grade and lacks right -of-way
improvements along Phillips
Street. Existing surrounding land
uses, zoning, and Policy Plan
(general plan ) and specific plan
land use designations are
summarized in the "Surrounding
Zoning & Land Uses" table located
in the Technical Appendix of this
report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

(1) Background — On
October 12, 2021, the Applicant

Figure 1: Project Location
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT

July 25, 2023
146
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 2 of 22 ends

submitted a Development Plan to construct one industrial building totaling 59,984 square feet on the Project site.

On June 19, 2023, the Development Advisory Board (“DAB”) of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider Development Plan, File No. PDEV22 -053. Concluding the hearing, the DAB voted to issue Decision No. DAB23-044, recommending the Planning Commission approve the Development Plan, subject to conditions of approval, which are appended to the Planning Commission resolution as Attachment A.

(2) Site Design/Building Layout — Proposed, is the construction of a 59,984-square foot industrial multi-tenant building, having a floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 0.54 (see Exhibit B— Site Plan, attached). The rectangular-shaped building is centrally located on the site, with the front of the building facing Sultana Avenue and two office entries located at the northwest and southwest corners of the building. The building is setback 10 feet from the north property line (Belmont Street), varies approximately 10 to 19 feet from the south property line, approximately 90 feet from the west property line (Sultana Avenue), and approximately 156 feet from the east property line. The primary off-street parking area is located on the west side of the proposed building to serve office employees and visitors, with a smaller parking area located within the yard area to serve employees.

A yard area, designed for tractor -trailer parking, truck maneuvering, loading activities, and outdoor staging, is located on the east side of the proposed building. The yard area will be screened from public view by a 14 -foot-high concrete tilt-up wall that will match the architecture of the building.

(3) Site Access/Circulation — There are two points of access to the Project site from Belmont Street, located at the northwest corner of the site, providing passenger vehicle access to the main parking area. The second site access is located at the northwest corner of the site, providing truck yard access from Belmont Street. To eliminate potential truck traffic on Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street and Belmont Street east of Monterey Avenue through existing residential neighborhoods, trucks exiting Belmont Street will be required to travel north on Monterey Avenue to Mission Boulevard. The curb radius at the northwest corner of Belmont Street and Monterey Avenue will be modified to accommodate a trailer truck turnin g radius (see Exhibit F — Vehicle and Truck Route, attached).

(4) Parking — The Project has provided off-street parking pursuant to the “Warehouse and Distribution” parking standards specified in the Development Code. The number of off-street parking spaces provided exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the Project. The off -street parking calculations for the Project are summarized in the table below:

147
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 3 of 22 ends

(5) Architecture — The proposed building is of concrete tilt -up construction and integrates a contemporary architectural design theme, incorporating enhanced elements and treatments at office entries and along street facing elevations (see Exhibit D — Elevations, attached). Architectural elements for all buildings include smooth - painted concrete in white and grey tones, metal panels, horizontal and vertical reveals, storefronts with white and black anodized aluminum mullions and blue glazing, metal canopies, 2
nd story windows with canopies, and recessed panel sections with contrasting colors. The mechanical equipment will be roof-mounted and obscured from public view by the parapet walls. Staff believes that the proposed Project illustrates the type of high- quality architecture promoted by the Development Code. This is exemplified through the use of:

 Articulation in the building footprint, incorporating a combination of recessed and popped-out wall areas;
 Articulation in the building parapet/roof line, which serves to accentuate the building’s entries and breaks up large expanses of building wall; and  Variations in building massing.

(6) Landscaping — The Project provides landsca ping along Belmont Street, Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street, the perimeter of the site, and throughout the off -street parking areas. The Development Code requires that the Project provide a minimum 15 percent landscape coverage, and 19 percent has been prov ided, exceeding the minimum requirements. Moreover, a combination of 15 -gallon, 24-inch, 36-inch, and 48-inch box accent and shade trees will be provided throughout the Project site, in addition to a variety of shrubs and groundcovers that are low water us age and drought tolerant.

Additionally, the Project includes street widening on Phillips Street, right -of-way improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway) and street trees. The proposed on - site and off-site landscape improvements will assist in creating a walkable, safe area for pedestrians to access the Project site (see Exhibit E —Landscape Plan, attached). Also, the Project will incorporate an employee break area, with benches, tables, and shade trees.

(7) Signage — All Project signage is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval.

Parking Summary
Type of Use Building
Area
Trailer Parking Vehicle Spaces
Required Provided Required Provided
Warehouse / Distribution 59,986 SF 2 2 40 44
TOTAL: 40 44
148
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 4 of 22 ends

(8) Utilities (drainage, sewer) — Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with sto rm water discharge/water quality requirements. 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 retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of underground 72-inch perforated corrugated metal pipes (CMP) located within the western parking lot. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.

COMMUNITY MEETING AND CORRESPONDENCE: The Planning Department held a community meeting on Thursday, March 10, 2022 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Ontario Senior Center to discuss the proposed development. Planning staff, Engineering staff, translators and the applicant were in attendance during the community meeting.

One resident attended the community meeting and had questions regarding the proposed project and site improvements and generally spoke in favor of the proposed project. Staff also received two e-mails from local property owners, one resident inquiring about the proposed project and the second resident’s e- mail did not support the proposed project (Exhibit G – Community Meeting Correspondence, attached). To date, the Planning Department has not received any further inquiries or correspondence regarding the proposed project.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

On-site posting was provided pursuant to Code Section 2.03.010.C.4, which consisted of one large, 6 -foot-tall, freestanding public notification sign located on the southwest corner of Sultana Avenue and Philips Street. The sign was posted ten (10) calendar days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment A."

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 149
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 5 of 22 ends

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:

(1) City Council Goals.

 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods  Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)

(2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:

 Commercial and Residential Development

 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California.

(3) Governance.

Decision Making:

 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices. 150
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 6 of 22 ends

 G 1 -2. Long-term Benefit . We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision.

(4) Policy Plan (General Plan)

Land Use Element:

 Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.

 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.

 Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.

 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility . We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Community Economics Element:

 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.

 CE-2.1 Development Projects . We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.

 CE-2.2 Development Review . We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.

 CE-2.4 Protection of Inve stment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.

 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private pr operty because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:

151
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 7 of 22 ends

 Goal S -1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards : Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.

 S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Community Design Element:

 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity : A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.

 CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.

 Goal CD -2 Design Quality : A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spa ces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.

 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture . We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:

• Building volume, massin g, and height to provide context -appropriate scale and proportion;
• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building ma terials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.

 CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.

 CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

152
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 8 of 22 ends

 CD-2.9 Landscape Design . We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.

 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public re alm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:

• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run -off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field; • Structured parking: facade articulation, screening, appropriate lighting, and landscaping; and
• Garage parking: providing access to single -family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.

 CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.

 CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.

 CD-3.3 C omplete and Connected Network . We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.

 CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design . We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure comp atibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.

 CD-3.5 Active Frontages . We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dini ng, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and 153
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 9 of 22 ends

designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).

 CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure . We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.

 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment : A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.

 CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property . We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.

 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure . We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B- 1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In- fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of:

(1) The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In -fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of:

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map, and the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district.

The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a Project site totaling 3.15 - acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of industrial and residential and uses.

154
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 10 of 22 ends

(c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area and is currently vacant and has regularly been cleared and grubbed, and as such not suitable habitat for any endangered, rare, or threatened species.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed industrial development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through im plementation of required state, regional, and local development, and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the following studies (Attachment A – Environmental Studies):

(i) An Air Quality Analysis, Energy Analysis, Global Climate Change Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was completed by Ganddini (Dated: February 24, 2022) and concluded the following:

 Air Quality – The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the nearest sensitive receptors to the P roject site include existing single -family residential located approximately 50 feet to the south (across Phillips Street), 60 feet to the west (across Sultana Avenue), and 85 feet to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street). Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. Th e Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Also, the Project site is currently located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP a ssumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

 Energy – The Energy Impact Analysis concluded that the Project is compliant with the California Building Standards Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen). The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the Project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

 Global Climate Change – The Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City of Ontario Communi ty Climate Action Plan/SCAQMD 155
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 11 of 22 ends

screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Furthermore, the P roject would not conflict with the goals of AB-32, SB-32, or the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan and CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

 Health Risk Assessment – The proposed Project would
generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions created by the on- going operations of the proposed project. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES -V study, the Project has an estimated multi -pathway cancer risk of 567 in one mill ion and an inhalation cancer risk of 535 in one million. In comparison the average multi -pathway cancer risk for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County is 471 in one million and the inhalation cancer risk is 439 in a million. This incre ased cancer risk at the site is largely due to the proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) rail line, State Route 60 (SR -60), and Interstate 10 (I -10) Freeway. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are us ually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology. The Project’s maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) does not exceed 10 in a million at any sensitive receptor location, the on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from diesel emissions created by the proposed project.

(ii) Noise Impact Analysis - A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Ganddini (Dated: March 4, 2022) and concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction noise sources are regulated within Section 5.29-09 of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code which allows construction activities to take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM weekends, excludi ng federal holidays. T he Project includes the construction of concrete 14-foot-high screen walls around the loading/unloading area of the proposed warehouse. The peak hour operational noise levels would range between 34 to 42 dBA to the nearest residential property lines from the project site. Therefore, project operational noise will not exceed either the exterior daytime residential standard of 65 dBA or the nighttime residential standard of 45 dBA as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, imp acts associated with project operational noise would be less than significant. Also, the Project site is located with in the 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Z one of Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a warehouse use is considered a compatible use within ONT’s 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone.

(iii) Trip Generation and VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Assessment – A Trip Generation and VMT Assessment was completed by Ganddini (Dated: February 9, 2022) and concluded that P roject is forecast t o generate approximately 103 daily trips, including 9 trips during the AM peak hour and 11 trips during the PM peak hour, which equates to approximately 159 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, including 9 PCE 156
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 12 of 22 ends

trips during the AM peak hour and 15 PC E trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with Level of Service analysis based on the County -established screening criteria as used by the City of Ontario. The proposed project meet s the County-established criteria for project type screening results in a less than significant VMT impact.

(iv) Water Quality - A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), was prepared which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. 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 retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities exist or will be constructed within the public street and will be readily available for connection.

157
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 13 of 22 ends

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site Vacant IND - Industrial (0.55
FAR) IL – Light Industrial N/A
North Steel Yard IND - Industrial (0.55
FAR) IL – Light Industrial N/A
South Single Family Residential
LMDR - Low Medium
Density Residential (5.1 –

11.0 du/ac)
MDR-11 (Medium
Density Residential) N/A
East Railroad BP - Business Park (0.60
FAR) IL – Light Industrial N/A
West Single Family Residential
LDR - Low Density
Residential (2.1 – 5.0
du/ac)
LDR-5 (Low Density
Residential) N/A

General Site & Building Statistics
Item Proposed Min./Max. Standard Meets
Y/N
Project Area: 3.15 ac N/A Y
Lot/Parcel Size: 3.15 ac 10,000 SF (Min.) Y
Building Area: 59,984 SF 60,000 SF Y
Floor Area Ratio: 0.54 FAR 0.55 (Max.) Y
Building Height: 44 FT 55 FT (Max.) Y

158
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 14 of 22 ends

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

159
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 15 of 22 ends

Exhibit B: SITE PLAN

160
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 16 of 22 ends

Exhibit C: FLOOR PLAN

161
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 17 of 22 ends

Exhibit D: ELEVATIONS

162
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 18 of 22 ends

Exhibit D: ELEVATIONS

163
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 19 of 22 ends

Exhibit E: LANDSCAPE PLAN

164
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 20 of 22 ends

Exhibit F: VEHICLE AND TRUCK ROUTES

165
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 21 of 22 ends

Exhibit G: COMMUNITY MEETING CORRESPONDENCE

166
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Page 22 of 22 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Environmental Studies

(Environmental Studies follow this page)
167
/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/7/10/10/1/9/7/8/5/11/5/0/1/2/7/12/13/14/1/15/2/16/14/7/5/17/18/2/7/7/9/7/8/5/11/5/17/2/1/19/9/7/8/5/11/5/20/14/9/12/10/5/21/5/22/9/23/1/2/16/14/7 /24/9/1/5/25/26/2/18/9/15/27/5/11/5/28/18/14/23/2/18/5/29/18/9/30/2/15/10/5/29/31/2/7/8/10/5/11/5/32/10/2/18/15/31/5/33/9/12/19/5/24/12/12/10/12/12/30/10/7/15 /34/35/36/37/38 /39 /40 /41/42/36/40/43/39/43
/44/43/45/35/46/38/42/41/35/47/45/38/48/35/49/40
/43/50/45/51/42/43/36/50/40/52/53/54/36/38/34/43/36/49/36/50/37/43/40/35/49/46/43/39/54/35/53 /46/45/43/53/43/39/55 /35/39/35/45/54/52/50/37/47/43/49/40/43/39/43/36/52/41/50/41 /56/57/58/59/60/61/62/63/58/64/65/57/60
/66/67/68/65/69/64/65/59/70/71/72/70/73/70/70
168
<UNHIDDEN>

BELMONT SULTANA

WAREHOUSE PROJECT

AIR QUALITY, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE,

HRA, AND ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Ontario
February 24, 2022
prepared by
Katie Wilson, MS
Catherine Howe, MS

GANDDINI GROUP INC
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com Project No. 19480
169
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis i 19480

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ .................. V

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ .................... 1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Phasing and Timing ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity....................................................................................................................... 2

2. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ ..... 5 Existing Air Quality Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Pollutants................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Other Pollutants of Concern ............................................................................................................................. 9 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................. 10 State – California Air Resources Board ....................................................................................................... 10 Regional ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 Local – City of Ontario .................................................................................................................................... 16 Monitored Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Ozone ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Nitrogen Dioxide ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Particulate Matter ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................................................... 22 Regional Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Toxic Air Contaminants ................................................................................................................................... 23 Odor Impacts...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Short-Term Construction Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 26 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Construction-Related Regional Impacts ...................................................................................................... 27 Construction-Related Local Impacts ............................................................................................................ 27 Construction-Related Human Health Impacts .......................................................................................... 28 Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts............................................................................ 28 Construction-Related Odor Impacts ............................................................................................................ 28 Long-Term Operational Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 33 Operations-Related Regional Air Quality Impacts .................................................................................... 33 Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts .......................................................................................... 34 Operations-Related Human Health Impacts .............................................................................................. 35 Operations-Related Odor Impacts ............................................................................................................... 35 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 40 Project Specific Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 40 Air Quality Compliance .................................................................................................................................... 40

3. DIESEL EMISSIONS HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 42 Emissions Inventory Development .......................................................................................................................... 42 Receptor Network ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 Dispersion Modeling .................................................................................................................................................... 44 Model Selection ................................................................................................................................................. 44 170
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis ii 19480
General Model Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 44 Meteorological Data ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Estimation of Health Risks ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Cancer Risks ....................................................................................................................................................... 45 Non-Cancer Risks ............................................................................................................................................. 46

4. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 58 Existing Greenhouse Gas Environment .................................................................................................................. 58 Water Vapor ....................................................................................................................................................... 58 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Methane (CH4) ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) ............................................................................................................................ 59 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) ............................................................................................................................. 59 Perfluorocarbons (PFC) ................................................................................................................................... 59 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) ................................................................................................................................. 60 Aerosols ............................................................................................................................................................... 60 Global Warming Potential ............................................................................................................................... 60 Greenhouse Gas Standards and Regulation .......................................................................................................... 62 International ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................. 62 State of California ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Regional – South Coast Air Quality Management District .................................................................... 74 Local – City of Ontario .................................................................................................................................... 77 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 77 Thresholds of Significance for this Project ................................................................................................. 77 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 78 Consistency With Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and Policies ............................................. 81 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 85

5. ENERGY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 86 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................... 86 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 86 Electricity ............................................................................................................................................................. 87 Natural Gas ......................................................................................................................................................... 87 Transportation Energy Resources ................................................................................................................ 88 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................................................... 88 Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................................................... 88 State Regulations .............................................................................................................................................. 89 Local – Ontario Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 93 Project Energy Demands and Energy Efficiency Measures .............................................................................. 94 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................ 94 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 94 Construction Energy Demands ..................................................................................................................... 95 Operational Energy Demands ....................................................................................................................... 96 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency ............................................................................ 98 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................... 98

6. EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 108 Construction Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 108 Operational Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 108

7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 171
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis iii 19480

APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary of Terms
Appendix B CalEEMod Model Daily Emissions Printouts
Appendix C HRA Assumptions & AERMOD Model Printouts
Appendix D CalEEMod Model Annual Emissions Printouts & EMFAC Data

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Local Monthly Climate Data.............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2. State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ......................................................................................... 17 Table 3. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Air Quality Monitoring Summary .................................................................................................................. 21 Table 5. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ......................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions ................................................................................ 30 Table 7. Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day ....................................................................................... 31 Table 8. Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ....................................................................... 32 Table 9. CalEEMod Revised Vehicle Mix Parameters.............................................................................................. 37 Table 10. Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions .................................................................................................. 38 Table 11. Local Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors .......................................................................... 39 Table 12. DPM Emissions Factors for the Proposed Project ................................................................................... 47 Table 13. Summary of Emission Configurations .......................................................................................................... 48 Table 14. General Modeling Assumptions – AERMOD Model ............................................................................... 49 Table 15. Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic 3rd Trimester Exposure Scenario (0.25 Years).......... 50 Table 16. Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2 Year) ................................ 51 Table 17. Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Child Exposure Scenario (14 Year) ............................... 52 Table 18. Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Adult Exposure Scenario (14 Year) ............................... 53 Table 19. Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk 30.25 Year Exposure Scenario ............................................................. 54 Table 20. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes ......................................................................... 61 Table 21. Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 80 Table 22. Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures ............................................... 83 Table 23. Total Electricity System Power (California 2020) ..................................................................................... 99 Table 24. SCE 2020 Power Content Mix .................................................................................................................... 100 Table 25. Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage ...................................................................... 101 Table 26. Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates ........................................................................ 102 Table 27. Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates .............................................................................. 103 172
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis iv 19480
Table 28. Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD & HHD Trucks) ................................... 104 Table 29. Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) ................................................... 105 Table 30. Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption ................................................................................. 106 Table 31. Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ....................................................................... 107

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. AERMOD Model Source and Receptor Placement ................................................................................. 55 Figure 4. Wind Rose: Ontario .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 5. Modeled Study Area Highest Annual DPM Emissions ........................................................................... 57

173
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis v 19480

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this air quality, global climate change, health risk assessment and energy impact analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from development of the proposed Belmont Sultana Warehouse project and to identify measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts.

Construction-Source Emissions

Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). For localized emissions, the project will not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD.

Project construction-source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As discussed herein, the project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction-source emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantively contribute to violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure to TACs as a result of project construction. Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, impacts from TACs during construction would be less than significant.

Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from construction activities.

Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction-source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

Operational-Source Emissions

Project operational-sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Project operational-source emissions would not result in or cause a significant localized air quality or toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts as discussed in the Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts section of this report. Additionally, project-related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO “hotspots).

The Diesel Emissions Health Risk Assessment conducted for this project showed that DPM emissions from project-related truck trips will not cause a significantly elevated cancer risk or significant non-cancer-related health risk to nearby receptors. Project operational-source emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project.

Project operational-source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The project's emissions meet SCAQMD regional thresholds and will not result in a significant cumulative impact. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential operational-source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

Greenhouse Gases

Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan/SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.

174
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis vi 19480
Furthermore, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold (based on EO S-3-05). The project would not conflict with the goals of AB-32, SB-32, or the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan and CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Energy

For new development such as that proposed by the Belmont Sultana Warehouse project, compliance with California Building Standards Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen), are considered demonstrable evidence of efficient use of energy. As discussed below, the project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards.

Moreover, energy consumed by the project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

175
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 1 19480

1. INTRODUCTION

This section describes the purpose of this air quality, global climate change, health risk assessment, and energy impact analysis, project location, proposed development, and study area. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to address the possibility of regional/local air quality impacts and global climate change impacts, from project related air emissions. The objectives of the study include:

 documentation of the atmospheric setting
 discussion of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases  discussion of the air quality and global climate change regulatory framework  analysis of the construction related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions  analysis of the operations related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions  discussion of the health risk impacts
 analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the SCAQMD AQMP  analysis of the project’s energy use during construction and operation  recommendations for mitigation measures

The City of Ontario is the lead agency for this air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act authorizing legislation. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with terms unique to air quality and global climate change, a definition of terms has been provided in Appendix A.

PROJECT LOCATION

The 2.55 net-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of Belmont Street and Sultana Avenue, addressed at 500 Belmont Street, in the City of Ontario, California. The project site is currently vacant. A vicinity map showing the project location is provided on Figure 1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project involves construction of a 59,984 square foot industrial building. The proposed project also includes 44 auto parking spaces and two trailer parking spaces. Access to the project site would be provided by two access driveways on Belmont Street. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan.

PHASING AND TIMING

The proposed project is anticipated to be operational in 2023. The project is anticipated to be built in one phase, with project construction to start no sooner than the beginning of February 2023 and being completed by November 2023. Even if construction was to occur any time after the respective dates, the analysis represents “worst-case” since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. 1

1 As shown in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0, Section 4.3.2 “OFFROAD Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements. 1 176
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 2 19480

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN PROJECT VICINITY

Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the existing single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south (across Phillips Street), 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest (across the intersection of Phillips Street and Sultana Avenue), 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west (across Sultana Avenue), 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest (across the intersection of Belmont Street and Sultana Avenue), 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast (across the intersection of Belmont Street and Monterey Avenue), and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street) of the project site.

2 177
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
N
Site

BELMONT ST

SULTANA AVE

MONTEREY AVE

PHILLIPS ST
3 178
Figure 2
Site Plan
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
N
4 179
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 5 19480

2. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS

Local Air Quality

The project site is located in the City of Ontario in San Bernardino County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) that includes all of Orange County as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The South Coast Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the South Coast Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The project site is located toward the northeast portion of the South Coast Air Basin near the foot of the San Bernardino Mountains, which define the eastern boundary of the South Coast Air Basin.

The climate of San Bernardino County, technically called an interior valley subclimate of the Southern California’s Mediterranean-type climate, is characterized by hot dry summers, mild moist winters with infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. The clouds and fog that form along the area’s coastline rarely extend as far inland as western Riverside County. When morning clouds and fog form, they typically burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern from an air quality perspective is associated with the warm season airflow across the populated areas of the Los Angeles Basin.

This airflow brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality that may extend to the project site particularly during the summer months.

Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source.

Daytime winds in western Riverside County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but as discussed above, these coastal winds carry significant amounts of industrial and automobile air pollutants from the densely urbanized western portion of the South Coast Air Basin into the interior valleys which become trapped by the mountains that border the eastern edge of the South Coast Air Basin.

In the summer, strong temperature inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air pollutant. Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloud.

In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough vehicular volumes in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.

The temperature and precipitation levels for the Fontana area, closest monitoring site with data, are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 shows that August is typically the warmest month and January and December are typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
5 180
Descriptor Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. Max. Temperature 66.4 68.9 68.5 72.8 80.3 86.5 95.0 96.2 90.0 80.4 68.7 66.0 Avg. Min. Temperature 41.5 42.6 43.9 45.9 51.5 56.1 59.5 62.4 60.2 52.5 43.5 41.7 Avg. Total Precipitation (in.) 3.17 3.27 4.13 1.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.62 0.77 2.59 2.33 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120
Data from the Fontana, CA station (043120).

Local Monthly Climate Data
Table 1
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
6 181
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 7 19480
Pollutants

Pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non-criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). A summary of federal and state ambient air quality standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section.

Criteria Pollutants

The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria for setting permissible levels.

The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants.

Nitrogen Dioxides

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with other pollutants to form, ground-level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO 2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources.

Ozone

Ozone (O3) is not usually emitted directly into the air but at ground-level is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground- level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely.

It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent.

The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high 7 182
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 8 19480
traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations.

CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death.

Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases (including sulfur dioxide [SO2]) are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, and from the refining of gasoline. SOx dissolve easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment.

Lead

Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air.

Particulate matter is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)

Although not a criteria pollutant, reactive organic gases (ROGs), or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are defined as any compound of carbon—excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate—that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions.

Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROGs and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Indoor sources of VOCs include paints, solvents, aerosol sprays, cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc. Outdoor sources of VOCs are from combustion and fuel evaporation. A reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility.

8 183
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 9 19480
Other Pollutants of Concern

Toxic Air Contaminants

In addition to the above-listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important of these toxic air contaminants, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Toxic air contaminants are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust.

According to the 2013 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health risk from toxic air contaminants can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is diesel particulate matter (DPM). Diesel particulate matter is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. The identification of diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant in 1998 led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles in September 2000. The plan’s goals are a 75-percent reduction in diesel particulate matter by 2010 and an 85-percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes carbon particles or “soot”. Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer- causing substances. California’s identification of diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant was based on its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Exposure to diesel particulate matter is a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources.

Asbestos

Asbestos is listed as a TAC by the ARB and as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Naturally occurring asbestos is not present in San Bernardino County. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located at Asbestos Mountain in the San Jacinto Valley; approximately 74.2 miles southeast of the site. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos.

REGULATORY SETTING

The proposed project is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through 9 184
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 10 19480
legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below.

Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown below in Table 2.

The EPA and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8- hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the Federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. Attainment status is shown in Table 3.

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The State Implementation Plan (SIP) must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

As indicated below in Table 3, the Basin has been designated by the EPA as a non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), suspended particulate matter (PM-2.5), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

State – California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for criteria pollutants are shown in Table 2. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. Furthermore, the motor vehicle emission standards established by CARB include compliance with the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles (SAFE) Rule, issued by NHTSA and EPA in March 2020 (published on April 30, 2020 and effective after June 29, 2020). The SAFE Rule sets fuel economy and carbon dioxide standards that increase 1.5 percent in stringency each year from model years 2021 through 2026, and apply to both passenger cars and light trucks. CARB. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

The South Coast Air Basin has been designated by the CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, the South Coast Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, SO2, NO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide.

10 185
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 11 19480
On June 20, 2002, the CARB revised the PM10 annual average standard to 20 µg/m3 and established an annual average standard for PM2.5 of 12 µg/m3. These standards were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in June 2003 and are now effective. On September 27, 2007 CARB approved the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. The plan projected attainment for the 8-hour Ozone standard by 2024 and the PM2.5 standard by 2015.

On December 12, 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08-43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on-road diesel truck fleets that operate in California. On October 12, 2009 Executive Order R-09-010 was adopted that codified Resolution 08-43 into Section 2025, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.

This regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in California shall meet model year 2010 (Tier 4) or latter emission standards. In the interim period, this regulation provides annual interim targets for fleet owners to meet. This regulation also provides a few exemptions including a onetime per year 3-day pass for trucks registered outside of California.

The CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to toxic air contaminants. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release into the South Coast Air Basin. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors.

AB 617 Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants

This bill requires the state board to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources. The bill requires those stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified. This bill required the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding technologies for monitoring criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and the need for and benefits of additional community air monitoring systems, as defined. The bill requires the state board to select, based on the monitoring plan, the highest priority locations in the state for the deployment of community air monitoring systems. The bill requires an air district containing a selected location, by July 1, 2019, to deploy a system in the selected location. The bill would authorize the air district to require a stationary source that emits air pollutants in, or that materially affect, the selected location to deploy a fence-line monitoring system, as defined, or other specified real-time, on-site monitoring. The bill authorizes the state board, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to select additional locations for the deployment of the systems. The bill would require air districts that have deployed a system to provide to the state board air quality data produced by the system. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state- mandated local program. The bill requires the state board to publish the data on its Internet Web site.

Regional

The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. On June 30, 2016, the 11 186
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 12 19480
SCAQMD released its Draft 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air.

Air Quality Management Plan

The 2016 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time. As with every AQMP, a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures is updated with the latest data and methods. The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. On March 23, 2017 the CARB approved the 2016 AQMP. The primary goal of this Air Quality Management Plan is to meet clean air standards and protect public health, including ensuring benefits to environmental justice and disadvantaged communities. Now that the Plan has been approved by the CARB, it has been forwarded to the U.S. EPA for its review. The Plan was approved by the EPA on June 15, 2017.

South Coast AQMD has initiated the development of the 2022 AQMP to address the attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard (70 ppb) for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. To support the development of mobile source strategies for the 2022 AQMP, South Coast AQMD, in conjunction with California Air Resources Board, has established Mobile Source Working Groups which are open to all interested parties.

SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

During construction and operation, the project must comply with applicable rules and regulations. The following are rules that the project may be required to comply with, either directly, or indirectly:

SCAQMD Rule 402

Prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

SCAQMD Rule 403

Governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.

Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

Rule 403 measures may include but are not limited to the following:

 Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 12 187
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 13 19480
 Water active sites at least three times daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code section 23114.
 Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less.  Suspension of all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind gusts) exceed 25 mph.
 Bumper strips or similar best management practices shall be provided where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.  Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.
 During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep on-site and off-site streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares, to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers.

SCAQMD Rule 445

Prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour.

SCAQMD Rule 481

Applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. The rule states that a person shall not use or operate any spray painting or spray coating equipment unless one of the following conditions is met:

(1) The spray coating equipment is operated inside a control enclosure, which is approved by the Executive Officer. Any control enclosure for which an application for permit for new construction, alteration, or change of ownership or location is submitted after the date of adoption of this rule shall be exhausted only through filters at a design face velocity not less than 100 feet per minute nor greater than 300 feet per minute, or through a water wash system designed to be equally effective for the purpose of air pollution control.
(2) Coatings are applied with high-volume low-pressure, electrostatic and/or airless spray equipment. (3) An alternative method of coating application or control is used which has effectiveness equal to or greater than the equipment specified in the rule.

SCAQMD Rule 1108

Governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.

SCAQMD Rule 1113

Governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

13 188
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 14 19480
SCAQMD Rule 1143

Governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule.

SCAQMD Rule 1186

Limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, state, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district.

SCAQMD Rule 1303

Governs the permitting of re-located or new major emission sources, requiring Best Available Control Measures and setting significance limits for PM10 among other pollutants.

SCAQMD Rule 1401

New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, specifies limits for maximum individual cancer risk, cancer burden, and non-cancer acute and chronic hazard index from new permit units, relocations, or modifications to existing permit units, which emit toxic air contaminants.

SCAQMD Rule 1403

Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM).

SCAQMD Rule 2202

On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, is to provide employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. It applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average.

SCAQMD Rule 2305

The Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program aims to reduce nitrogen oxide and diesel emissions associated with warehouses, help meet federal standards and improve public health. The WAIRE Program is an indirect source rule that regulates warehouse facilities to reduce emissions from the goods movement industry. Owners and operators of warehouses that have 100,000 square feet or more of indoor floor space in a single building must comply with the WAIRE Program. WAIRE is a menu-based point system in which warehouse operators are required to earn a specific number of points every year. The yearly number of points required is based on the number of trucks trips made to and from the warehouse each year, with larger trucks such as tractors or tractor-trailers multiplied by 2.5. Warehouse operators may be exempt from parts of the rule if they operate less than 50,000 square feet of warehousing activities, if the number of points required is less than 10, or if the WAIRE menu action chosen under performs due to circumstances beyond the operator’s control, such as a manufacturer defect. SCAQMD Rule 316 establishes fees to fund Rule 2305 compliance activities.

14 189
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 15 19480

Air Quality Guidance Documents

SCAQMD CEQA Handbook

Although the SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) prepared by the SCAQMD (1993) with the most current updates found at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs of the AQMP. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project’s potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that the SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook approved by the AQMD Governing Board in 1993. The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is still available but not online. In addition, there are sections of the 1993 Handbook that are obsolete. In order to assist the CEQA practitioner in conducting an air quality analysis while the new Handbook is being prepared, supplemental information regarding: significance thresholds and analysis, emissions factors, cumulative impacts emissions analysis, and other useful subjects, are available at the SCAQMD website 2. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook and supplemental information is used in this analysis.

Southern California Association of Governments

The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the Federally designated MPO for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP), which addresses regional development and growth forecasts. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The Regional Transportation Plan, Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.

On April 7, 2016, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS or Plan). The Plan is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The Plan charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. It outlines more than $556.5 billion in transportation system investments through 2040. The Plan was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. In June 2016, SCAG received its conformity determination from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicating that all air quality conformity requirements for the 2016 RTP/SCS and associated 2015 FTIP Consistency Amendment through Amendment 15-12 have been met.

On May 7, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) for federal transportation conformity purposes only. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Regional Council will consider approval of Connect SoCal in its entirety and for all

2 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 15 190
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 16 19480
other purposes within 120 days from May 7, 2020. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. It was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.

Local – City of Ontario

Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Ontario, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the 2016 AQMP. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.

The City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.

The Environmental Resources Element of the Ontario Policy Plan includes the following applicable air-quality related goals and policies:

Goal ER4 Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.

ER4-1: Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance.

ER4-2: Sensitive Land Uses. We prohibit the future siting of sensitive land uses, within the distances defined by the California Air Resources Board for specific source categories, without sufficient mitigation.

ER4-3: Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions Reductions. We will reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations.

ER4-4: Indoor Air Quality. We will comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality.

ER4-5: Transportation. We promote mass transit and non-motorized mobility options (e.g., walking, biking) to reduce air pollutant emissions.

ER4-6: Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.

ER4-7: Other Agency Collaboration. We collaborate with other agencies within the South Coast Air Basin to improve regional air quality at the emission source.

ER4-8: Tree Planting. We protect healthy trees within the City and plant new trees to increase carbon sequestration and help the regional/local air quality.

16 191
California Standards
Federal Primary
Standards

0.09 ppm/1-hour

0.07 ppm/8-hour 0.070 ppm/8-hour
(a) Decline in pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage.

20.0 ppm/1-hour

9.0 ppm/8-hour

35.0 ppm/1-hour

9.0 ppm/8-hour
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses.

0.18 ppm/1-hour

0.03 ppm/annual
100 ppb/1-hour

0.053 ppm/annual
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.

0.25 ppm/1-hour

0.04 ppm/24-hour
75 ppb/1-hour

0.14 ppm/annual
(a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
50 µg/m3/24-hour
20 µg/m3/annual 150 µg/m3/24-hour
12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3/24-hour
12 µg/m3/annual
25 µg/m3/24-hour No Federal Standards
(a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c ) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; (f) property damage.

1.5 µg/m3/30-day 0.15 µg/m3/3-month
rolling (a) Learning disabilities; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction.

Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per kilometer-
visibility of 10 miles or
more due to particles
when humidity is less
than 70 percent.

No Federal Standards Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.

Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf Table 2
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly.

State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards
Air Pollutant
Ozone (O3)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Sulfates
Lead
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
17 192
State Status National Status
Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme)
Attainment Maintenance (Serious)
Attainment Maintenance (Primary)
Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Nonattainment Maintenance (Serious)
Nonattainment Nonattainment (Moderate)
Source (Federal and State Status): California Air Resources Board (2020) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal- area-designations & US EPA (2020) https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

PM10
PM2.5
Table 3
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant
Ozone
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
18 193
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19 19480

MONITORED AIR QUALITY

The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Basin provided in the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan prepared by SCAQMD (March 2017) indicate that collectively, mobile sources account for 60 percent of the VOC, 90 percent of the NOx emissions, 95 percent of the CO emissions and 34 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 13 percent of PM2.5 from road dust.

The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in the Southwest San Bernardino Valley Air Monitoring Area (Area 33). The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Upland Monitoring Station (Upland Station). The Upland Station is located approximately 3.68 miles northeast of the project site at 1350 San Bernardino Road, Upland. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring stations distances from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site. Table 4 presents the monitored pollutant levels from the Upland Station.

Table 4 summarizes 2018 through 2020 published monitoring data, which is the most recent 3-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the ozone standards.

Ozone

During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone was exceeded between 25 and 82 days each year at the Upland Station. The State 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 54 and 118 days each year over the past three years at the Upland Station. The Federal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded between 52 and 116 days each year over the past three years at the Upland Station.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight.

Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.

Carbon Monoxide

CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Upland Station did not record an exceedance of the state or federal 8-hour CO standard for the last three years.

Nitrogen Dioxide

The Upland Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal NO 2 standards for the last three years.

Particulate Matter

The State 24-hour concentration standards for PM10 were exceeded for only one day in 2018 and one day in 2020 over the last three years at the Upland Station. Over the past three years, the Upland Station did not record an exceedance of the Federal 24-hour standards for PM10.

There was insufficient data for the Federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 over the last three years at the Upland Station.
19 194
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 20 19480

According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.

20 195
2018 2019 2020
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.133 0.131 0.158
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 25 31 82
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.112 0.107 0.124
Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 52 52 116
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 54 54 118
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) * * *
Days > CAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.059 0.058 0.055
Days > CAAQS (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 156.6 125.9 174.8 Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 µg/m3) 1 0 1
Annual Average (µg/m3) 33.4 29.0 33.5
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 47.9 91.1 74.0
Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3) * * *
Annual Average (µg/m3) * * *
Notes:
(1) CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million * Means there was insufficient data available to determine value.

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Data from the Upland Monitoring Station, unless otherwise noted.

Year
Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Table 4
Pollutant (Standard)1
Ultra-Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5):

Ozone:

Carbon
Monoxide:2
Nitrogen Dioxide:

Inhalable
Particulates
(PM10):2
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
21 196
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 22 19480

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Significance Thresholds

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make a significance determination. Pursuant to Appendix G, the project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:

 Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 provides the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district, when available, may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. The potential air quality impacts of the project are, therefore, evaluated according to thresholds developed by SCAQMD in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, and subsequent guidance, which are listed below. 3 Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact to air quality if it would:

AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

AIR-2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation as a result of:

 Criteria pollutant emissions during construction (direct and indirect) in excess of the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds,
 Criteria pollutant emissions during operation (direct and indirect) in excess of the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

AIR-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);

AIR-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations that would:

 Exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds,
 Cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots.

AIR-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

The SCAQMD is in the process of developing an Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In the interim, supplemental guidance has been adopted by the SCAQMD. The

3 While the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains significance thresholds for lead, Project construction and operation would not include sources of lead emissions and would not exceed the established thresholds for lead. Unleaded fuel and unleaded paints have virtually eliminated lead emissions from industrial land use projects such as the Project. As a result, lead emissions are not further evaluated herein.
22 197
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 23 19480
potential air quality impacts of the project are, therefore, evaluated according to numeric indicators developed by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and supplemental guidance from the SCAQMD. 4

Regional Air Quality

Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 5.

Local Air Quality

Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO 2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The significance thresholds for the local emissions of NO2 and CO are determined by subtracting the highest background concentration from the last three years of these pollutants from Table 4 above, from the most restrictive ambient air quality standards for these pollutants that are outlined in the Localized Significant Thresholds. Table 5 shows the ambient air quality standards for NO 2, CO, and PM10 and PM2.5.

Toxic Air Contaminants

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:

 If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or  Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater.

In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to hazardous air pollutants (HAP), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis), prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create hazardous air pollutants through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the hazardous air pollutants and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutants should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility-wide health risk assessment (HRA).

4 While the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains significance thresholds for lead, Project construction and operation would not include sources of lead emissions and would not exceed the established thresholds for lead. Unleaded fuel and unleaded paints have virtually eliminated lead emissions from residential land use projects such as the Project. As a result, lead emissions are not further evaluated herein.
23 198
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 24 19480

The potential for health risks due to project-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions is examined in Section 3 of this report.

Odor Impacts

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact.

24 199
Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
100 55
75 55
150 150
55 55
150 150
550 550
3 3
TACs
Odor
GHG
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Table 5
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant
NOx
NO2 -1-hour average
VOC
Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial projects
SCAQMD Standards

0.18 ppm (338 µg/m^3)
PM10
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment)
PM2.5
SOx
CO
Lead
Toxic Air Contaminants, Odor and GHG Thresholds
PM10 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations
PM2.5 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations
SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 ug/m^3
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
Lead
30-day average
Rolling 3-month average
Quarterly average

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 µg/m^3

0.25 ppm

0.04 ppm
20 ppm (23,000 µg/m^3)
9 ppm (10,000 µg/m^3)

1.5 µg/m^3

0.15 µg/m^3

1.5 µg/m^3
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
25 200
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 26 19480

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would have the potential to generate air emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and odor impacts. Assumptions for the phasing, duration, and required equipment for the construction of the proposed project were obtained from the project applicant.

The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include: grading of approximately 2.55 net acres; construction of a 59,984 square foot industrial building with a 57,984 square foot footprint; paving of a parking lot with 44 auto parking spaces and two trailer spaces; and application of architectural coatings.

The project is to have approximately 7,000 cubic yards of import during grading. See Appendix B for more details.

The proposed project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than the beginning of February 2023 and being completed by November 2023. The project is anticipated to be operational in 2023.

Methodology

The following provides a discussion of the methodology used to calculate regional construction air emissions and an analysis of the proposed project’s short-term construction emissions for the criteria pollutants. The construction-related regional air quality impacts have been analyzed for both criteria pollutants and GHGs.

Emissions are estimated using the CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) software, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California.

Regional data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions. The model is considered to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects throughout California and is recommended by the SCAQMD.5 Daily regional emissions during construction are forecasted by assuming a conservative estimate of construction activities (i.e., assuming all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The input values used in this analysis were adjusted to be project-specific for the construction schedule and the equipment used was based on CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2017 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2017 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length data were used to assess roadway emissions from truck exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day of project construction. The maximum daily emissions are compared to the SCAQMD daily regional numeric indicators. Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emission calculations are provided in Appendix B.

The project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation

5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model, http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/. 26 201
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 27 19480
Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of the Project area (approximately 2.55 net acres) a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required.

SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust control measures is used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth moving operations would occur. Compliance with Rule 403 has been included in the CalEEMod modeling for the proposed project.

Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the architectural coatings that would be applied after January 1, 2014 will be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less of VOCs for building coatings and 100 grams per liter or less of VOCs for traffic coatings.

The phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below for each phase are: (1) grading, (2) building construction, (3) paving, and (4) application of architectural coatings. Details pertaining to the project's construction timing and the type of equipment modeled for each construction phase are available in the CalEEMod output in Appendix B.

Construction-Related Regional Impacts

The construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase are shown below in Table 6. Table 6 shows that none of the project's emissions will exceed regional thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

Construction-Related Local Impacts

Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from: construction-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions; from toxic air contaminants; and from construction-related odor impacts.

Local Air Quality Impacts from Construction

The SCAQMD has published a “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b). CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. In order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables, the CEQA document should contain the following parameters:

(1) The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. (2) The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day. (3) Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment. (4) Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.

The CalEEMod output in Appendix B show the equipment used for this analysis.

As shown in Table 7, the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 2 acres during grading. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look-up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology prepared by SCAQMD (revised July 2008). The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the 27 202
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 28 19480
proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Southwest San Bernardino Valley source receptor area (SRA) 33 and a disturbance value of two acres per day. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south, 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest, 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west, 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest, 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast, and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east of the project site; therefore, the SCAQMD Look-up Tables for 25 meters were used. Table 8 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the LST emissions thresholds.

The data provided in Table 8 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

Construction-Related Human Health Impacts

Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project construction are not anticipated.

Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 6 and the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (August 2003),7 health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a lifetime (i.e., 30-year) resident exposure duration. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 9 months), the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure as a result of project construction. Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds.

The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. The project would also comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 if asbestos is found during the renovation and construction activities. Therefore, impacts from TACs during construction would be less than significant.

Construction-Related Odor Impacts

Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being

6 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment, February 2015, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, August 2003,http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis.doc?sfvrsn=2. 28 203
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 29 19480
utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors.

29 204
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
On-Site1 1.33 14.47 8.70 0.02 3.42 1.90
Off-Site2 0.39 16.93 5.28 0.08 2.84 0.89
Subtotal 1.72 31.40 13.99 0.10 6.25 2.79
On-Site1 1.83 14.78 15.89 0.07 0.67 0.64
Off-Site2 0.21 0.82 2.05 0.01 0.65 0.18
Subtotal 2.03 15.60 17.94 0.08 1.33 0.82
On-Site1 1.08 8.61 11.68 0.02 0.43 0.40
Off-Site2 0.06 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.17 0.05
Subtotal 1.14 8.65 12.25 0.02 0.60 0.45
On-Site1 57.27 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site2 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.10 0.03
Subtotal 57.31 1.33 2.15 0.00 0.17 0.10

60.48 25.57 32.34 0.11 2.10 1.37
75 100 550 150 150 55
No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0
(1)
(2) Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. (3) Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap.

On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. On-site grading PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show mitigated values for fugitive dust for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403.

Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions
Table 6
Building Construction
Activity
Grading
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Paving
Architectural Coating
Total for overlapping phases3
SCAQMD Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds?
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
30 205
Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Crawler Tractors1
2 0.5 1
Total for phase - - 2
Notes:

Source: South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, 2011b. (1) Tractor/loader/backhoe is a suitable surrogate for a crawler tractor per SCAQMD staff.

Table 7
Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day
Activity
Grading
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
31 206
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 14.47 8.70 3.42 1.90
Building Construction 14.78 15.89 0.67 0.64
Paving 8.61 11.68 0.43 0.40

1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Thresholds1,2 170 1,232 6 5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
(1)
(2)
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Note: The project will disturb up to a maximum of 2 acres a day during grading (see Table 7).

Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
Table 8
Activity
Architectural Coating
The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south, 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest, 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west, 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest, 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast, and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east of the project site; therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used.

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2-acres at a distance of 25 m in SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley.

Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
32 207
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 33 19480

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

The operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated vehicle trips and through operational emissions from the on-going use of the proposed project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to: regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on- going operations of the proposed project.

Operations-Related Regional Air Quality Impacts

The potential operations-related air emissions have been analyzed below for the criteria pollutants and cumulative impacts.

Operations-Related Criteria Pollutants Analysis

The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of the CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on the year 2023, which is the anticipated opening year per the Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment (“LOS & VMT Screening Assessment”) prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 9, 2022) for the proposed project. The operations daily emissions printouts from the CalEEMod model are provided in Appendix B. The CalEEMod analyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources, which are discussed below.

Mobile Sources

The LOS & VMT Screening Assessment found that the proposed project would create approximately 103 vehicle trips per day (non-PCE) and 159 vehicle trips per day (PCE) with a trip generation rate of 1.71 trips per thousand square foot per day. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.

The LOS & VMT Screening Assessment found that the proposed industrial use would create 67 automobile round trips, 6 2-axle truck round trips, 7 3-axle truck round trips, and 23 4+-axle truck round trips per day (non-PCE). The vehicle mix for the industrial project was changed in CalEEMod to match the LOS & VMT Screening Assessment (see Table 9) and the percentages in CalEEMod were changed to 65.1% autos (C-W) and 34.9% trucks (C-NW) to match the overall vehicle percentages given in the LOS & VMT Screening Assessment. Due to the proposed project’s location and proposed industrial land use, the average customer based trip length was increased to 40 miles per SCAQMD recommendation, while all other trip lengths were based on the urban default values.

Area Sources

Per the CAPCOA Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment. No changes were made to the default area source parameters.

33 208
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 34 19480
Energy Usage

Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Project Impacts

The worst-case summer or winter criteria pollutant emissions created from the proposed project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are shown below in Table 10. The results show that none of the SCAQMD regional thresholds would be exceeded. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed project.

Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts

Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analysis analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local impacts from on- site operations per SCAQMD LST methodology, and odor impacts.

Local CO Emission Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips

CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles.

For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards which were presented above.

To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed above, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans. In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: South Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) evaluated the Level of Service in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be Level of Service E during the morning peak hour and Level of Service F during the afternoon peak hour.

The LOS & VMT Screening Assessment showed that the proposed project would generate a maximum of approximately 103 daily vehicle trips. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO 34 209
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 35 19480
Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. Therefore, as the project generates only 103 daily vehicle tripes, the intersection volumes would fall far short of 100,000 vehicles per day, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed project.

Local Air Quality Impacts from On-Site Operations

Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, on- site usage of natural gas appliances as well as the operation of vehicles on-site may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors that may be impacted by the proposed project are the existing single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south, 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest, 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west, 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest, 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast, and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east of the project site.

The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed according to the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Per SCAQMD staff, the 5-acre Look-up Table, which is the largest site available, can be used as a conservative screening analysis for on-site operational emissions to determine whether more-detailed dispersion modeling would be necessary. The proposed project was analyzed based on the Southwest San Bernardino Valley source receptor area (SRA) 33 and as the site is only 2.55 net-acres, used the screening thresholds for a two- acre project site.

Table 11 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes natural gas usage, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Per LST methodology, mobile emissions include only on-site sources which equate to approximately 10 percent of the project-related new mobile sources. 8 The data provided in Table 11 shows that the on-going operations of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD local operational thresholds of significance discussed above. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required.

Operations-Related Human Health Impacts

Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project operation are not anticipated.

Operations-Related Odor Impacts

Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would include odor emissions from the intermittent diesel delivery truck emissions and trash storage areas. Due to the

8 The project site is approximately 0.13 miles in length at its longest point; therefore the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/65th of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 8.4 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site.
35 210
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 36 19480
distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.

36 211
Ratio
Number of
Vehicles Ratio
Number of
Vehicles
Automobile 0.538 55 0.376 39
Automobile 0.056 6 0.039 4
Automobile 0.172 18 0.121 12
Automobile 0.139 14 0.097 10
2-Axle Truck 0.027 3 0.046 5
2-Axle Truck 0.007 1 0.012 1
3-Axle Truck 0.011 1 0.068 7
4+-Axle Truck 0.017 2 0.223 23
-- 0.001 0 0.000 0
-- 0.000 0 0.000 0
Automobile 0.025 3 0.018 2
-- 0.001 0 0.000 0
-- 0.005 1 0.000 0

1.0 103 1.0 103
Notes:
(1) Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 default values for Opening year of 2023. (2)
Motor Home
Total
Revised per the vehicle mix provided in the Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment (Ganddin Group, Inc., February 2022) of 65.1% Autos, 5.8% 2-Axle Trucks, 6.8% 3-Axle Trucks and

22.3% 4+ Axle Trucks.

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs
Table 9
CalEEMod Revised Vehicle Mix Parameters
CalEEMod Vehicle Type
Vehicle Mix from
Traffic Analysis
CalEEMod Default Mix1 CalEEMod Revised Mix2
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 lbs
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
37 212
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources1 1.36 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage2 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Sources3 0.49 4.35 6.85 0.03 2.09 0.60

1.86 4.38 6.89 0.03 2.09 0.60
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; the higher of either summer or winter emissions. (1) Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. (2) Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. (3) Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Table 10
Activity
Total Emissions
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
38 213
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00

0.43 0.68 0.21 0.06

0.47 0.73 0.21 0.06
170 1,232 2 2
No No No No
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3) Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. (4)
(5)
Area Sources2
Table 11
Local Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
On-Site Emission Source
The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south, 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest, 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west, 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest, 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast, and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east of the project site; therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used.

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres in SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley.

Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.

On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust.

Energy Usage3
Vehicle Emissions4
Total Emissions
SCAQMD Thresholds5
Exceeds Threshold?
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
39 214
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 40 19480

CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

There are a number of cumulative projects in the project area that have not yet been built or are currently under construction. Since the timing or sequencing of the cumulative projects is unknown, any quantitative analysis to ascertain daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent construction projects would be speculative. Further, cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area.

The SCAQMD recommends using two different methodologies: (1) that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality;9 and (2) that a project’s consistency with the current AQMP be used to determine its potential cumulative impacts.

Project Specific Impacts

The project area is out of attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state non-attainment pollutant.

Project operations would generate emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, which, would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or local thresholds and would not be expected to result in ground level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of emissions, CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post-construction motor vehicle operations. As indicated earlier, no violations of the state and federal CO standards are projected to occur for the project, based on the magnitude of traffic the project is anticipated to create.

Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for non- attainment of criteria pollutants or ozone precursors. As a result, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact for operational emissions.

Air Quality Compliance

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution White Paper, 1993, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 40 215
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 41 19480
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP". Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Criteria 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations

Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance.

Therefore, the proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.

Criteria 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?

Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by SCAG (2020) includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Ontario Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The project site is currently designated as Industrial in the Ontario Plan. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.

Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

41 216
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 42 19480

3. DIESEL EMISSIONS HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed project would generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions created by the on-going operations of the proposed project. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES-V study, has an estimated multi-pathway cancer risk of 567 in one million and an inhalation cancer risk of 535 in one million.

In comparison the average multi-pathway cancer risk for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County is 471 in one million and the inhalation cancer risk is 439 in a million. This increased cancer risk at the site is largely due to the proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) rail line, State Route 60 (SR- 60), and Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway.

According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology.

A health risk assessment requires the completion and interaction of four general steps:

(1) Quantify project-generated TAC emissions.
(2) Identify nearby ground-level receptor locations that may be affected by the emissions (including any special sensitive receptor locations such as residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and daycare centers).
(3) Perform air dispersion modeling analyses to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations at each receptor location using project TAC emissions and representative meteorological data to define the transport and dispersion of those emissions in the atmosphere.
(4) Characterize and compare the calculated health risks with the applicable health risk significance thresholds.

EMISSIONS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

Important issues that affect the dispersion modeling include the following: (1) Model Selection, (2) Source Treatment, (3) Meteorological Data, and (4) Receptor Grid. Each of these issues is addressed below.

Emission Source Estimates – DPM for Motor Vehicles

DPM emissions from the various sources were calculated using information derived from the project description, and mobile source emission factors from the CARB EMFAC2021 emissions factor model. Truck mix information was obtained from the Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment (“LOS & VMT Screening Assessment”) prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 9, 2022).

Four pieces of information are required to generate the mobile source emissions from the proposed project:

 Number of vehicle trips for each component of the proposed project;  Types of vehicles that access the proposed project (passenger car vs. heavy-duty truck and gasoline vs. diesel);
 The allocation of the vehicle trips to each building that comprises the proposed project; and  Estimate of the vehicle emission factors for estimating exhaust and idling emissions.

Estimate of Vehicle Trips and Vehicle Types

The LOS & VMT Screening Assessment showed the project is expected to generate approximately 103 (non- passenger car equivalents) vehicle trips per day. Of those vehicle trips, 67 are automobile round trips, 6 are 42 217
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 43 19480
2-axle truck round trips, 7 are 3-axle truck round trips, and 23 are 4+-axle truck round trips per day (non- passenger car equivalents).

Estimate of Emission Factors

The DPM emission factors for the various vehicle types were derived from the CARB EMFAC2021 mobile source emission model. The emissions factors were derived for San Bernardino County. Third trimester exposure used opening year (2023) emissions factors, 2-year factors (for infant exposure) reflect years 2024 and 2025, 14-year average factors (for child exposure during years 2-16) reflect emissions during the first 14 years of operation (2026 to 2039), the second 14 years of exposure (years 2040-2053) were used for assessment of exposure during years 16 to 30.

Emissions factors were estimated to establish the emissions generated while the vehicles travel off-site, along travel links from the entrance to the loading docks, and while idling at the loading dock during loading or unloading materials. All vehicles were assumed to travel on-site at a speed of 10 miles per hour. Off-site, the speeds along the roads were anticipated to average 35 miles per hour. Delivery vehicles were assumed to idle for a maximum of 15 minutes per vehicle per day (5 minutes per location: at the entrance/exit driveway and at the loading docks), in keeping with the CARB Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), which regulates truck idling time (CARB 2004). The four different sets of emissions factors used in this assessment are detailed in Table 12. It should be noted that the DPM emissions on both the gram per mile and gram per idle hour bases decline beyond 2023 for all vehicle classes and in particular the heavy-heavy-duty truck class (the 4+ axle “big rig” trucks). This is due to the CARB emissions’ requirements on heavy-duty trucks that call for either the replacement of older trucks with cleaner trucks or the installation of diesel particulate matter filters on the truck fleet.

Emission Source Characterization

Each of the emission source types described above also requires geometrical and emission release specifications for use in the air dispersion model. An average truck height of 13.5 feet and average truck width of 8.5 feet were entered into the haul road calculator in AERMOD in order to calculate the plume height and release height for the line sources. Table 13 provides a summary of the assumptions used to configure the various emission sources. The following definitions are used to characterize the emission source geometrical configurations referred to in Table 13:

 Point source: A single, identifiable, local source of emissions; it is approximated in the AERMOD air dispersion model as a mathematical point in the modeling region with a location and emission characteristics such as height of release, temperature, etc., for example, a truck idle location where emissions are sourced from the truck's exhaust stack while the vehicle is stationary.

 Line source: A series of volume sources along a path, for example, vehicular traffic volumes along a roadway.

Figure 3 provides the location of the project buildings, emission source locations, and the locations of the nearest sensitive receptors (single-family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the south (across Phillips Street), 82 feet (~25 feet) to the southwest (across the intersection of Phillips Street and Sultana Avenue), 60 feet (~18 meters) to the west (across Sultana Avenue), 85 feet (~26 meters) to the northwest (across the intersection of Belmont Street and Sultana Avenue), 120 feet (36 meters) to the northeast (across the intersection of Belmont Street and Monterey Avenue), and 85 feet (~26 meters) to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street) of the project site). Residential receptors are also located along the off-site truck route along E. Belmont Street and along Euclid Avenue, north and south of E.

Belmont Street. Residential receptors are shown as orange triangles labeled 1 through 6, 8, 9 11, and 12.

Euclid Elementary School is labeled as School_7 and De Anza Park is labeled as Park_10. The direction of on- site and off-site truck travel were obtained from the site plan and City truck routes. 43 218
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 44 19480

RECEPTOR NETWORK

The assessment requires that a network of receptors be specified where the impacts can be computed at the various locations surrounding the project. Receptors were located at existing sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed project (as detailed above). In addition, the identified sensitive receptor locations were supplemented by the specification of a modeling grid that extended around the proposed project to identify other potential locations of impact. As stated above, the locations of the receptors are shown as orange triangles on Figure 3.

DISPERSION MODELING

The next step in the assessment process utilizes the emissions inventory along with a mathematical air dispersion model and representative meteorological data to calculate impacts at the various receptor locations.

The dispersion model used in this assessment is described below.

Model Selection

The assessment of air quality and health risk impacts from pollutant emissions from this project applied the USEPA AERMOD Model, which is the air dispersion model accepted by the SCAQMD for performing air quality impact analyses. AERMOD predicts pollutant concentrations from point, area, volume, line, and flare sources with variable emissions in terrain from flat to complex with the inclusion of building downwash effects from buildings on pollutant dispersion. It captures the essential atmospheric physical processes and provides reasonable estimates over a wide range of meteorological conditions and modeling scenarios. AERMOD View Version 10.2.1, EPA version No. 21112, was utilized for this analysis.

General Model Assumptions

A summary of Emission Configurations is shown in Table 13. The basic options used in the dispersion modeling are summarized in Table 14.

As indicated in Table 14 the analysis takes into account the effects of building downwash on the dispersion of emissions from the various sources located on the project’s property. Building downwash occurs when the aerodynamic turbulence, induced by nearby buildings, causes pollutants emitted from an elevated source to be mixed rapidly toward the ground (downwash), resulting in potentially higher ground-level concentrations than if the buildings were not present. The AERMOD dispersion model contains algorithms to account for building downwash effects. The required information includes the location of the emission source; the location of adjacent buildings; and the building geometry in terms of length, width, and height. For purposes of this analysis, the emission source and building locations were taken from the project site plan. The proposed building geometries were obtained from the project plans and assume a building height of 44 feet.

Meteorological Data

Meteorological data (processed with the ADJ_U option) from the Air District’s Ontario International Airport monitoring site was selected for this modeling application. Five full years of sequential meteorological data was collected at the site from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD processed the data for input to the model. The data was obtained at SCAQMD’s https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/data-for-aermod (see Figure 4).

44 219
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 45 19480

ESTIMATION OF HEALTH RISKS

Health risks from diesel particulate matter are twofold. First, diesel particulate matter is a carcinogen according to the State of California. Second, long-term chronic exposure to diesel particulate matter can cause health effects to the respiratory system. Each of these health risks is discussed below.

Cancer Risks

According to the Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments , released by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in February 2015 and formally adopted in March 2015, the residential inhalation dose for cancer risk assessment should be calculated using the following formula:

[Dose-air (mg/(Kg-day)]*Cancer Potency*[1x10-6] = Potential Cancer Risk

Where:

Cancer Potency Factor = 1.1
Dose-inh = (C¬air * DBR * A * EF * ED *ASF*FAH* 10-6) / AT

Where:

Cair [Concentration in air (µg/m 3)] = (Calculated by AERMOD Model) DBR [Daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight – day)] = 261 for adults, 572 for children, and 1,090 for infants, and 361 for 3rd trimester per SCAQMD Permit Application Package "N" Table 4.1 D guidance.

A [Inhalation absorption factor] = 1
EF [Exposure frequency (days/year)] = 350
ED [Exposure duration (years)] = 30 for adults (for an individual who is an adult at opening year), 14 for children (from 2-16 years), 14 for adults (from 16-30 years), 2 for infants, and 1 for 3rd Trimester ASF [Age sensitivity factor) = 10 for 3rd trimester to 2 years of age, 3 for 2 to 16 years of age, and 1 for 16 to 30 years of age
FAH [Fraction of time spent at home] = 1 for 3rd trimester to 2 years of age, 1 for 2 to 16 years of age, and 0.73 for 16 to 30 years of age
106 [Micrograms to milligrams conversion]
AT [Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days] = 25,550

The model run results are shown in Appendix C. Figure 5 illustrates the cancer risk to the most affected age- group, infants (0-2 years). Table 15 show the cancer risk for the unborn child during the 3rd trimester, Table 16 shows the cancer risk to infants (0-2 years), Table 17 shows the cancer risk to children ages 2 to 16 years and Table 18 shows the cancer risk as that child becomes an adult (years 16-30).

The highest cancer risk corresponds to infant cancer risk 0-2 years (see Table 16), and is at receptor 2, with a maximum risk of 0.292 in one million. The maximum 3rd trimester (0.25-year) cancer risk is at receptor 2; with a maximum cancer risk of 0.013 in a million. The highest child (2-16 years) cancer risk is at receptor 2; with a maximum risk of 0.286 in one million and the highest adult (16-30 years) cancer risk is at receptor 2; with a maximum risk of 0.03 in one million. Therefore, no children, infants, or adults are exposed to cancer risks in excess of 10 in a million.

The assessment of cancer-related health risk to sensitive receptors within the project vicinity is based on the following most-conservative scenario: An unborn child in its 3rd trimester is potentially exposed to DPM emissions (via exposure of the mother) during the opening year. That child is born opening year and then remains at home for the entire first two years of life. From age 2 to 16, the child remains at home 100 percent of the time. From age 16 to 30, the child continues to live at home, growing into an adult that spends 73 percent of its time at home and lives there until age 30.

45 220
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 46 19480
Based on the above, ultra-conservative assumptions, the 30.25-year, cumulative carcinogenic health risk (3rd trimester [-0.25 to 0 years] + infant [0-2 years] + child [2-16 years] + adult [16-30 years]) to an individual born during the opening year of the project, and located in the project vicinity for the entire 30-year duration, is a maximum of 0.62 in a million at receptor location 2, as shown in Table 19. Therefore, as the maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) does not exceed 10 in a million at any sensitive receptor location, the on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from diesel emissions created by the proposed project.

Non-Cancer Risks

The relationship for non-cancer health effects is given by the equation:

HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM

Where,
HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.

CDPM = Annual average diesel particulate matter concentration in µg/m3.

RELDPM = Reference Exposure Level (REL) for diesel particulate matter; the diesel particulate matter concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.

The non-carcinogenic hazards to adult, child and infant receptors are also detailed in Tables 15 through 18 column (j). The RELDPM is 5 µg/m3. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as protective for the respiratory system has established this concentration. Using the maximum DPM concentration from years 2023-2053, the resulting Hazard Index is:

HIDPM = 0.00093/5 = 0.0002

The criterion for significance is a Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the non-cancer risk from diesel emissions created by the proposed project.
46 221
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)

0.77884 0.05961 0.02374

0.08675 0.04522 0.01037

0.01631 0.01258 0.00856
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)

0.77760 0.05232 0.02124

0.06652 0.03520 0.00833

0.01500 0.01198 0.00811
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)

0.76899 0.03945 0.01734

0.02150 0.01154 0.00340

0.01135 0.00969 0.00658
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)

0.76156 0.03556 0.01660

0.00743 0.00328 0.00154

0.00975 0.00821 0.00565
Notes:

Source: EMFAC2021.

Heavy Heavy Duty Truck
Medium Heavy Duty Truck
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck
Vehicle Class
14-Year Average (Second 14 years of Operation - 2040-2053) Light Heavy Duty Truck 2
Medium Heavy Duty Truck
Table 12
DPM Emissions Factors for the Proposed Project
Vehicle Class
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2
1-Year Average (Opening Year-2023)
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2
Medium Heavy Duty Truck
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck
Vehicle Class
2-Year Average (2024-2025)
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2
Medium Heavy Duty Truck
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck
Vehicle Class
14-Year Average (First 14 years of Operation - 2026-2039) Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
47 222
Emission Source Type Geometric Configuration
> Stack diameter: 0.1 meter (0.3 feet)
> Stack velocity: 51.9 mps (170 feet/sec)
> Stack temperature: 366 °k (200° F)
Idle time: 15 minutes per truck per day
On-Site Diesel Truck Idling
On-Site Diesel Truck Traffic Line Sources
Stack release height: 3.5 m
Vehicle speed: 10 mph
Length of the line source (from project driveway to loading dock area) Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty, medium-heavy-duty and light-heavy- duty diesel delivery trucks
Point Sources located at loading
docks and Project driveway
Stack release height: 3.5 m
Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty, medium-heavy-duty and light-heavy- duty diesel delivery trucks
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2021
Stack release characteristics
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2021
Table 13
Summary of Emission Configurations
Relevant Assumptions
Off-Site Diesel Truck Traffic Line Sources
Stack release height: 3.5 m
Vehicle speed: 35 mph
Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty, medium-heavy-duty and light-heavy- duty diesel delivery trucks
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2021
Length of the line source (from Project Driveway westbound along Belmont Street, from Belmont Street north toward Mission Boulevard, from Belmont Street south toward E. Francis Street)
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
48 223
Feature Option Selected
Terrain processing AERMAP - NED GEOTIFF 30 m
Emission source configuration See Table 13
Regulatory dispersion options Default
Land use Urban
Coordinate system UTM, Zone 11 north
Building downwash Included in calculations
Receptor height 0 meters above ground (per SCAQMD/OEHHA methodology) Meteorological data SCAQMD Ontario International Airport Meteorological Data Table 14
General Modeling Assumptions - AERMOD Model
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
49 224
Receptor Weight CPF REL RfD
ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00066 6.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.009 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 2 0.00093 9.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.013 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002 3 0.00074 7.4E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.010 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 4 0.00056 5.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.008 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 5 0.00045 4.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.006 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 6 0.00051 5.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.007 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 School_7 0.00011 1.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.001 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 8 0.00029 2.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.004 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 9 0.00015 1.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.002 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Park_10 0.00018 1.8E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.002 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 11 0.00014 1.4E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.002 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 12 0.00017 1.7E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.002 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Notes:

OEHHA 95th percentile Exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake:

Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25
361
10 Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 91.25
E= 10X, i.e. E-02 = 10-2
Table 15
Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic 3rd Trimester Exposure Scenario (0.25-Year) Daily Breathing Rate
Age Sensitivity Factor
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
RISK (per
million) Index
Maximum
Concentration
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
50 225
Receptor Weight CPF REL RfD
ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00063 6.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.207 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 2 0.00089 8.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.292 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002 3 0.00071 7.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.233 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 4 0.00054 5.4E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.177 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 5 0.00042 4.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.138 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 6 0.00048 4.8E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.158 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 School_7 0.0001 1.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.033 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 8 0.00026 2.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.085 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 9 0.00013 1.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.043 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Park_10 0.00015 1.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.049 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 11 0.00011 9.0E-05 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.036 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 12 0.00014 1.9E-04 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.046 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Notes:

OEHHA 95th percentile Exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 2
1090
10 Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 730
E= 10X, i.e. E-02 = 10-2
Table 16
Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2-Year) Daily Breathing Rate
Age Sensitivity Factor
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
RISK (per
million) Index
Maximum
Concentration
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
51 226
Receptor Weight CPF REL RfD
ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00055 5.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.199 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 2 0.00079 7.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.286 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002 3 0.00063 6.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.228 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 4 0.00049 4.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.177 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 5 0.00035 3.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.127 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 6 0.0004 4.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.145 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 School_7 0.00008 8.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.029 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 8 0.0002 2.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.072 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 9 0.0001 1.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.036 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Park_10 0.00012 1.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.043 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 11 0.00009 9.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.033 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 12 0.0001 1.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.036 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Notes:

OEHHA 95th percentile Exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 14
572
3 Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 5110
E= 10X, i.e. E-02 = 10-2
Table 17
Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Child Exposure Scenario (2-16 Years) Daily Breathing Rate
Age Sensitivity Factor
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
RISK (per
million) Index
Maximum
Concentration
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
52 227
Receptor Weight CPF REL RfD
ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00052 5.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.021 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 2 0.00075 7.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.030 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002 3 0.0006 6.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.024 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 4 0.00046 4.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.018 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 5 0.00031 3.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.012 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 6 0.00037 3.7E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.015 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001 School_7 0.00006 6.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.002 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 8 0.00017 1.7E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.007 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 9 0.00008 8.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.003 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Park_10 0.0001 1.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.004 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 11 0.00008 8.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.003 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 12 0.00003 3.0E-08 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.001 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000 Notes:

OEHHA 95th percentile Exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 14
261
1 Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 0.73
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 5110
E= 10X, i.e. E-02 = 10-2
Table 18
Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards Adult Exposure Scenario (16-30 Years) Concentration
Daily Breathing Rate
Age Sensitivity Factor
Maximum Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
RISK (per
million) Index
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
53 228
Receptor ID Cumulative RISK (per million)
1 0.44
2 0.62
3 0.50
4 0.38
5 0.28
6 0.32
School_7 0.07
8 0.17
9 0.08
Park_10 0.10
11 0.07
12 0.09
Table 19
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk 30.25-Year Exposure Scenario Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
54 229
Figure 3
AERMOD Model Source and Receptor Placement
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
N
Legend
Project Site Boundary
On/Off Site Truck Travel
Truck Idling Locations
Discrete Receptors
Cartesian Receptors
55 230
Figure 4
Wind Rose, Ontario
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
56 231
Figure 5
Modeled Study Area Highest Cancer Risk from Annual DPM Emissions Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
N
Legend
1 in a million

0.5 in a million

0.1 in a million

0.05 in a million
Cancer Risk to Infants 0-2 Years
57 232
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 58 19480

4. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS

EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS ENVIRONMENT

Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N 2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation.

Emissions of CO 2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO 2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

The following provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.

Water Vapor

Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop”. The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

The natural production and absorption of CO 2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.

However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s. Each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014) Emissions of CO 2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010. Globally, economic and population growth continued to be the most important drivers of increases in CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical to the previous three decades, while the contribution of economic growth has risen sharply.

58 233
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 59 19480
Methane (CH4)

CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO 2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

Concentrations of N 2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N 2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant, (i.e., in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and in race cars).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)

CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C 2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. It was used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)

HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF 3), HFC-134a (CF 3CH2F), and HFC-152a (CH 3CHF2).

Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC-23. HFC-134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC-23 and HFC-134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons (PFC)

PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

59 234
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 60 19480
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF 6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO 2. Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt.

Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

Aerosols

Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol concentrations in the United States; however, global concentrations are likely increasing.

Global Warming Potential

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO 2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO 2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases. A summary of the atmospheric lifetime and the global warming potential of selected gases are summarized in Table 20. As shown in Table 20, the global warming potential of GHGs ranges from 1 to 22,800.

60 235
Atmospheric Lifetime
Global Warming Potential1
(100 Year Horizon)
__ 2 1
12 28-36
114 298
1-270 12-14,800
2,600-50,000 7,390-12,200
740 17,200
3,200 22,800
Notes:

Source: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html (1) Compared to the same quantity of CO 2 emissions.
(2)
Table 20
Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes
Carbon dioxide's lifetime is poorly defined because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments.

Gas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (NO)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
61 236
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 62 19480

GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS AND REGULATION

International

Montreal Protocol

In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs.

Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere—CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform—were to be phased out, with the first three by the year 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005.

The Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement became effective on November 4, 2016. Thirty days after this date at least 55 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention), accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, had deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.

The Paris Agreement built upon the Convention and – for the first time – attempted to bring all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.

The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.

Federal

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy to address GHGs. The federal government administers a wide array of public-private partnerships to reduce the GHG intensity generated in the United States. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane and other non-CO2 gases, agricultural practices, and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. The USEPA implements numerous voluntary programs that contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions. These programs (e.g., the ENERGY STAR labeling system for energy-efficient products) play a significant role in encouraging voluntary reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings, and many major industrial sectors.

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory requirements. As 62 237
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 63 19480
such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO 2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

In response to the FY2008 Consolidations Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), EPA proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources in the United States. On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The rule became effective on December 29, 2009. This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to EPA.

On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other is a cause or contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These actions will not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, it is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the EPA and Department of Transportation on September 15, 2009.

Clean Air Act

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), the U.S. Supreme Court held in April of 2007 that the USEPA has statutory authority under Section 202 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHGs. The court did not hold that the USEPA was required to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA. The USEPA adopted a Final Endangerment Finding for the six defined GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) on December 7, 2009. The Endangerment Finding is required before USEPA can regulate GHG emissions under Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA consistently with the United States Supreme Court decision. The USEPA also adopted a Cause or Contribute Finding in which the USEPA Administrator found that GHG emissions from new motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines are contributing to air pollution, which is endangering public health and welfare. These findings do not, by themselves, impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, these actions were a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles.

Energy Independence Security Act

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) facilitates the reduction of national GHG emissions by requiring the following:

 Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022;  Prescribing or revising standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances;  Requiring approximately 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs by phasing out incandescent light bulbs between 2012 and 2014; requiring approximately 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020; and
 While superseded by the USEPA and NHTSA actions described above, (i) establishing miles per gallon targets for cars and light trucks and (ii) directing the NHTSA to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for trucks.

63 238
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 64 19480
Additional provisions of EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promote research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of green jobs.10

Executive Order 13432

In response to the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling, the President signed Executive Order 13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the USEPA, along with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme Court’s decision. Executive Order 13432 was codified into law by the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Law signed on February 17, 2009.

The order sets goals in the areas of energy efficiency, acquisition, renewable energy, toxics reductions, recycling, sustainable buildings, electronics stewardship, fleets, and water conservation. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.

On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a national policy for fuel efficiency and emissions standards in the United States auto industry. The adopted federal standard applies to passenger cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 through 2016. The rule surpasses the prior Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE)11 and requires an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and 250 grams of CO2 per mile by model year 2016, based on USEPA calculation methods. These standards were formally adopted on April 1, 2010. In August 2012, standards were adopted for model year 2017 through 2025 for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. By 2025, vehicles are required to achieve 54.5 mpg (if GHG reductions are achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements) and 163 grams of CO2 per mile.

According to the USEPA, a model year 2025 vehicle would emit one-half of the GHG emissions from a model year 2010 vehicle. 12 In 2017, the USEPA recommended no change to the GHG standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2022-2025.

On May 12, 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, proposing to repeal “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program,” published Sept. 27, 2019 (SAFE I Rule), in which NHTSA codified regulatory text and made additional pronouncements regarding the preemption of state and local laws related to fuel economy standards. Specifically, this document proposes to fully repeal the regulatory text and appendices promulgated in the SAFE I Rule. In addition, this document proposes to repeal and withdraw the interpretative statements made by the Agency in the SAFE I Rule preamble, including those regarding the preemption of particular state Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions standards or Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandates. As such, this document proposes to establish a clean slate with respect to NHTSA's regulations and interpretations concerning preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).13

State of California

California Air Resources Board

CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets state ambient air quality standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards

10 A green job, as defined by the United States Department of Labor, is a job in business that produces goods or provides services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.
11 The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards are regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975, to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The U.S Department of Transportation has delegated the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the regulatory agency for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks, August 2012, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF. 13 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/12/2021-08758/corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-preemption 64 239
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 65 19480
[CAAQS]), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

In 2004, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy- duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants (Title 13 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 2485). The measure applies to diesel- fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure generally does not allow diesel- fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than 5 minutes at any given location with certain exemptions for equipment in which idling is a necessary function such as concrete trucks. While this measure primarily targets diesel particulate matter emissions, it has co-benefits of minimizing GHG emissions from unnecessary truck idling.

In 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus regulation to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California (13 CCR, Section 2025, subsection (h)). CARB has also promulgated emission standards for off-road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The regulation, adopted by the CARB on July 26, 2007, aims to reduce emissions by installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission-controlled models. While these regulations primarily target reductions in criteria air pollutant emission, they have co-benefits of minimizing GHG emissions due to improved engine efficiencies.

The State currently has no regulations that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs. However, the State has passed laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which are listed below.

Assembly Bill 1493

California Assembly Bill 1493 enacted on July 22, 2002, required the CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2005, the CARB submitted a “waiver” request to the EPA from a portion of the federal Clean Air Act in order to allow the State to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards for CO2 and other GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On December 19, 2007 the EPA announced that it denied the “waiver” request. On January 21, 2009, CARB submitted a letter to the EPA administrator regarding the State’s request to reconsider the waiver denial. The EPA approved the waiver on June 30, 2009. After adopting these initial greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles, CARB adopted continuing standards for future model years.

Executive Order S-3-05

The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets:

 By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;  By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and  By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. To comply with the Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
65 240
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 66 19480

Assembly Bill 32 (California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5 – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (codified in the California Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 25.5 – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), which focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. HSC Division 25.5 defines GHGs as CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 and represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit emissions of these GHGs from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. The law further requires that reduction measures be technologically feasible and cost effective. Under HSC Division 25.5, CARB has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions. CARB is required to adopt rules and regulations directing state actions that would achieve GHG emissions reductions equivalent to 1990 statewide levels by 2020.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197

In 2016, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill AB 197, and both were signed by Governor Brown. SB 32 and AB 197 amends HSC Division 25.5 and establishes a new climate pollution reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and includes provisions to ensure the benefits of state climate policies reach into disadvantaged communities.

Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008)
A specific requirement of AB 32 was to prepare a Climate Change Scoping Plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reduction by 2020 (Health and Safety Code section 38561 (h)). CARB developed an AB 32 Scoping Plan that contains strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The initial Scoping Plan was approved in 2008, and contains a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the State’s long-range climate objectives.

As required by HSC Division 25.5, CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was originally set at 427 MMTCO2e using the GWP values from the IPCC SAR. CARB also projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under no-action-taken (NAT) conditions – that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions. CARB originally used an average of the state’s GHG emissions from 2002 through 2004 and projected the 2020 levels at approximately 596 MMTCO2e (using GWP values from the IPCC SAR).

Therefore, under the original projections, the state must reduce its 2020 NAT emissions by 28.4 percent in order to meet the 1990 target of 427 MMTCO2e.

First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014)
The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by CARB in May 2014 and builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. In 2014, CARB revised the target using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4 and determined that the 1990 GHG emissions inventory and 2020 GHG emissions limit is 431 MMTCO2e. CARB also updated the State’s 2020 NAT emissions estimate to account for the effect of the 2007–2009 economic recession, new estimates for future fuel and energy demand, and the reductions required by regulation that were recently adopted for motor vehicles and renewable energy. CARB’s projected statewide 2020 emissions estimate using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4 is 509.4 MMTCO2e.

2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan

In response to the 2030 GHG reduction target, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan at a public meeting held in December 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan outlines the strategies the State will implement 66 241
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 67 19480
to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan also addresses GHG emissions from natural and working lands of California, including the agriculture and forestry sectors. The 2017 Scoping Plan considered the Scoping Plan Scenario and four alternatives for achieving the required GHG reductions but ultimately selected the Scoping Plan Scenario.

CARB states that the Scoping Plan Scenario “is the best choice to achieve the State’s climate and clean air goals.”14 Under the Scoping Plan Scenario, the majority of the reductions would result from the continuation of the Cap-and-Trade regulation. Additional reductions are achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply at least 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030), doubling the energy efficiency savings at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the mobile source strategy and sustainable freight action plan. The alternatives were designed to consider various combinations of these programs, as well as consideration of a carbon tax in the event the Cap-and-Trade regulation is not continued. However, in July 2017, the California Legislature voted to extend the Cap-and-Trade regulation to 2030. Implementing this Scoping Plan will ensure that California’s climate actions continue to promote innovation, drive the generation of new jobs, and achieve continued reductions of smog and air toxics. The ambitious approach draws on a decade of successful programs that address the major sources of climate-changing gases in every sector of the economy:

 More Clean Cars and Trucks: The plan sets out far-reaching programs to incentivize the sale of millions of zero-emission vehicles, drive the deployment of zero-emission trucks, and shift to a cleaner system of handling freight statewide.
 Increased Renewable Energy: California’s electric utilities are ahead of schedule meeting the requirement that 33 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. The Scoping Plan guides utilities to 50 percent renewables, as required under SB 350.
 Slashing Super-Pollutants: The plan calls for a significant cut in super-pollutants such as methane and HFC refrigerants, which are responsible for as much as 40 percent of global warming.  Cleaner Industry and Electricity: California’s renewed cap-and-trade program extends the declining cap on emissions from utilities and industries and the carbon allowance auctions. The auctions will continue to fund investments in clean energy and efficiency, particularly in disadvantaged communities.  Cleaner Fuels: The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will drive further development of cleaner, renewable transportation fuels to replace fossil fuels.
 Smart Community Planning: Local communities will continue developing plans which will further link transportation and housing policies to create sustainable communities.  Improved Agriculture and Forests: The Scoping Plan also outlines innovative programs to account for and reduce emissions from agriculture, as well as forests and other natural lands.

The 2017 Scoping Plan also evaluates reductions of smog-causing pollutants through California’s climate programs.

SB 32, Pavley. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

(5) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This bill would require the state board to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. (2) This bill would become operative only if AB 197 of the 2015–16 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2017. AB 197 requires that the California Air Resources Board, which

14 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 67 242
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 68 19480
directs implementation of emission-reduction programs, should target direct reductions at both stationary and mobile sources. AB 197 of the 2015-2016 Regular Session was approved on September 8, 2016.

Executive Order S-1-07

Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs the CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.

On April 23, 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard and began implementation on January 1, 2011. The low carbon fuel standard is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013. In September 2015, the Board approved the re-adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector.

The LCFS is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. Separate standards are established for gasoline and diesel fuels and the alternative fuels that can replace each. The standards are “back-loaded”, with more reductions required in the last five years, than during the first five years. This schedule allows for the development of advanced fuels that are lower in carbon than today’s fuels and the market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles. It is anticipated that compliance with the low carbon fuel standard will be based on a combination of both lower carbon fuels and more efficient vehicles.

Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn-derived ethanol at ten percent by volume and low sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel as appropriate. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles are also considered as low carbon fuels for the low carbon fuel standard.

Senate Bill 97

Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010.

Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the state CEQA guidelines that address GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporate GHG language throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance were provided and no specific mitigation measures were identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010, and are summarized below:

68 243
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 69 19480
 Climate action plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan.  Local governments are encouraged to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG impacts assessment.  When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts.  New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
 OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation”.  OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of such an approach.  Environmental impact reports (EIRs) must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy efficiency potential.

Senate Bill 100

Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) requires 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. SB 100 was adopted September 2018.

The interim thresholds from prior Senate Bills and Executive Orders would also remain in effect. These include Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078), which requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) which changed the target date to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08, which was signed on November 2008 and expanded the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 directed the CARB to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to enforce S-14-08. Senate Bill X1-2 codifies the 33 percent renewable energy requirement by 2020.

Senate Bill 375

Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. The CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy or alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.

The proposed project is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) jurisdiction, which has authority to develop the SCS or APS. For the SCAG region, the targets set by the CARB are at eight percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 19 percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2035. These reduction targets became effective October 2018.

69 244
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 70 19480
Senate Bill X7-7

Senate Bill X7-7 (SB X7-7), enacted on November 9, 2009, mandates water conservation targets and efficiency improvements for urban and agricultural water suppliers. SB X7-7 requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop a task force and technical panel to develop alternative best management practices for the water sector. In addition, SB X7-7 required the DWR to develop criteria for baseline uses for residential, commercial, and industrial uses for both indoor and landscaped area uses. The DWR was also required to develop targets and regulations that achieve a statewide 20 percent reduction in water usage.

Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1374

Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004, suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills.

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6

CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.

The Energy Commission adopted 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008, and Building Standards Commission approved them for publication on September 11, 2008. These updates became effective on August 1, 2009.

CalEEMod modeling defaults to 2008 standards. 2013 Standards were approved and have been effective since July 1, 2014. 2016 Standards were adopted January 1, 2017. 2019 standards were published July 1, 2019 and became effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The 2016 residential standards were estimated to be approximately 28 percent more efficient than the 2013 standards, whereas the 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately 7 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards.

Furthermore, once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately 53 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings are estimated to be approximately 30 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards.

Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions.

Per Section 100 Scope, the 2019 Title 24, Part 6 Building Code now requires healthcare facilities, such as assisted living facilities, hospitals, and nursing homes, to meet documentation requirements of Title 24, Part 1 Chapter 7 – Safety Standards for Health Facilities. A healthcare facility is defined as any building or portion thereof licensed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Division 2, Chapter 1, Section 1204 or Chapter 2, Section 1250.

Section 120.1 Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality included both additions and revisions in the 2019 Code. This section now requires nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings to have air filtration systems that use forced air ducts to supply air to occupiable spaces to have air filters. Further, the air filter efficiency must be either MERV 13 or use a particle size efficiency rating specific in the Energy Code AND be equipped with air filters with a minimum 2-inch depth or minimum 1-inch depth if sized according to the equation 120.1-A. If natural ventilation is to be used the space must also use mechanical unless ventilation openings are either permanently open or controlled to stay open during occupied times. The 2019 version of the Code also completely revised the minimum ventilation requirements including DVC airflow rates within Section 120.1 Table 120.1–A. Table 70 245
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 71 19480
120.1-A now includes air classification and recirculation limitations, these are based on either the number of occupants or the CFM/ft2 (cubic feet per minute per square foot), whichever is greater.

Section 120.1 Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality also included additions for high-rise residential buildings.

Requirements include that mechanical systems must provide air filters that and that air filters must be MERV 13 or use a particle size efficiency rating specified in the Energy Code. Window operation is no longer a method allowed to meet ventilation requirements, continuous operation of central forced air system handlers used in central fan integrated ventilation system is not a permissible method of providing the dwelling unit ventilation airflow, and central ventilation systems that serve multiple dwelling units must be balanced to provide ventilation airflow to each dwelling unit. In addition, requirements for kitchen range hoods were also provided in the updated Section 120.1.

Per Section 120.1(a) healthcare facilities must be ventilated in accordance with Chapter 4 of the California Mechanical Code and are NOT required to meet the ventilations requirements of Title 24, Part 6.

Section 140.4 Space Conditioning Systems included both additions and revisions within the 2019 Code. The changes provided new requirements for cooling tower efficiency, new chilled water-cooling system requirements, as well as new formulas for calculating allowed fan power. Section 140.4(n) also provide a new exception for mechanical system shut-offs for high-rise multifamily dwelling units, while Section 140.4(o) added new requirements for conditioned supply air being delivered to space with mechanical exhaust.

Section 120.6 Covered Processes added information in regards to adiabatic chiller requirements that included that all condenser fans for air-cooled converseness, evaporative-cooled condensers, adiabatic condensers, gas coolers, air or water fluid coolers or cooling towers must be continuously variable speed, with the speed of all fans serving a common condenser high side controlled in unison .Further, the mid-condensing setpoint must be 70 degrees Fahrenheit for all of the above mentioned systems.

New regulations were also adopted under Section 130.1 Indoor Lighting Controls. These included new exceptions being added for restrooms, the exception for classrooms being removed, as well as exceptions in regard to sunlight provided through skylights and overhangs.

Section 130.2 Outdoor Lighting Controls and Equipment added automatic scheduling controls which included that outdoor lighting power must be reduced by 50 to 90 percent, turn the lighting off during unoccupied times and have at least two scheduling options for each luminaire independent from each other and with a 2- hour override function. Furthermore, motion sensing controls must have the ability to reduce power within 15 minutes of area being vacant and be able to come back on again when occupied. An exception allows for lighting subject to a health or life safety statute, ordinance, or regulation may have a minimum time-out period longer than 15 minutes or a minimum dimming level above 50% when necessary to comply with the applicable law.

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (California Green Building Standards)

On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011.

2016 CALGreen Code: The 2016 residential standards were estimated to be approximately 28 percent more efficient than the 2013 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. During the 2016- 2017 fiscal year, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2015 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle.

HCD also increased the required construction waste reduction from 50 percent to 65 percent of the total building site waste. This increase aids in meeting CalRecycle’s statewide solid waste recycling goal of 75 percent for 2020 as stated in Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 (AB 341). HCD adopted new regulations 71 246
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 72 19480
requiring recycling areas for multifamily projects of five or more dwelling units. This regulation requires developers to provide readily accessible areas adequate in size to accommodate containers for depositing, storage and collection of non-hazardous materials (including organic waste) for recycling. This requirement assists businesses that were required as of April 1, 2016, to meet the requirements of Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014 (AB 1826).

HCD adopted new regulations to require information on photovoltaic systems and electric vehicle chargers to be included in operation and maintenance manuals. Currently, CALGreen section 4.410.1 Item 2(a) requires operation and maintenance instructions for equipment and appliances. Photovoltaic systems and electric vehicle chargers are systems that play an important role in many households in California, and their importance is increasing every day. HCD incorporated these two terms in the existing language in order to provide clarity to code users as to additional systems requiring operation and maintenance instructions.

HCD updated the reference to Clean Air Standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency applicable to woodstoves and pellet stoves. HCD also adopted a new requirement for woodstoves and pellet stoves to have a permanent label indicating they are certified to meet the emission limits. This requirement provides clarity to the code user and is consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s New Source Performance Standards. HCD updated the list of standards which can be used for verification of compliance for exterior grade composite wood products. This list now includes four standards from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA): CSA O121, CSA O151, CSA O153 and CSA O325. HCD updated heating and air-conditioning system design references to the ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J, ANSI/ACCA 1 Manual D, and ANSI/ACCA 3 Manual S to the most recent versions approved by ANSI. HCD adopted a new elective measure for hot water recirculation systems for water conservation. The United States Department of Energy estimates that 3,600 to 12,000 gallons of water per year can be saved by the typical household (with four points of hot water use) if a hot water recirculation system is installed.

2019 CALGreen Code: During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2019 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle.

HCD modified the best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention adding Section 5.106.2 for projects that disturb one or more acres of land. This section requires projects that disturb one acre or more of land or less than one acre of land but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale must comply with the postconstruction requirement detailed in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The NPDES permits require postconstruction runoff (post-project hydrology) to match the preconstruction runoff pre-project hydrology) with installation of postconstruction stormwater management measures.

HCD added sections 5.106.4.1.3 and 5.106.4.1.5 in regard to bicycle parking. Section 5.106.4.1.3 requires new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. In addition, Section 5.106.4.1.5 states that acceptable bicycle parking facility for Sections 5.106.4.1.2 through

5.106.4.1.4 shall be convenient from the street and shall meeting one of the following: (1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; (2) lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or (3) lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

HCD amended section 5.106.5.3.5 allowing future charging spaces to qualify as designated parking for clean air vehicles.

HCD updated section 5.303.3.3 in regard to showerhead flow rates. This update reduced the flow rate to 1.8 GPM.

HCD amended section 5.304.1 for outdoor potable water use in landscape areas and repealed sections

5.304.2 and 5.304.3. The update requires nonresidential developments to comply with a local water efficient 72 247
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 73 19480
landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resource’s’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent. Some updates were also made in regard to the outdoor potable water use in landscape areas for public schools and community colleges.

HCD updated Section 5.504.5.3 in regard to the use of MERV filters in mechanically ventilated buildings. This update changed the filter use from MERV 8 to MERV 13. MERV 13 filters are to be installed prior to occupancy, and recommendations for maintenance with filters of the same value shall be included in the operation and maintenance manual.

Executive Order B-30-15

On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15. Therein, the Governor directed the following:

 Established a new interim statewide reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
 Ordered all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets.  Directed CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Executive Order B-29-15

Executive Order B-29-15, mandates a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable water usage. EO B-29-15 signed into law on April 1, 2015.

Executive Order B-37-16

Executive Order B-37-16, continuing the State's adopted water reductions, was signed into law on May 9, 2016. The water reductions build off the mandatory 25 percent reduction called for in EO B-29-15.

Executive Order N-79-20

Executive Order N-79-20 was signed into law on September 23, 2020 and mandates 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.

SBX1 2

Signed into law in April 2011, SBX1 2, requires one-third of the State’s electricity to come from renewable sources. The legislation increases California’s current 20 percent renewables portfolio standard target in 2010 to a 33 percent renewables portfolio standard by December 31, 2020.

Senate Bill 350

Signed into law October 7, 2015, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. In addition, SB 350 requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. To help ensure these goals are met and the greenhouse gas emission reductions are realized, large utilities will be required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). These IRPs will detail how each entity will 73 248
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 74 19480
meet their customers resource needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ramp up the deployment of clean energy resources.

Energy Sector and CEQA Guidelines Appendix F

The CEC first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically (typically every three years) to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2016 update to the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of renovations and addition to existing buildings as well as newly constructed buildings and renovations and additions to existing buildings. The major efficiency improvements to the residential Standards involve improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting, whereas the major efficiency improvements to the nonresidential Standards include alignment with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2013 national standards. Furthermore, the 2016 update required that enforcement agencies determine compliance with CCR, Title 24, Part 6 before issuing building permits for any construction. 15

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality.”16 As of January 1, 2011, the CALGreen Code is mandatory for all new buildings constructed in the state. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for new residential and non-residential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. The CALGreen Code was most recently updated in 2019 to include new mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2020.

Regional – South Coast Air Quality Management District

The project is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, Climate Change

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII currently includes three rules:

 The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials.  The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, is to establish a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
 Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, was adopted on February 6, 2009. The purpose of this rule is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

15 California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, June 2015, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-CMF.pdf 16 California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, (2010). 74 249
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 75 19480

A variety of agencies have developed greenhouse gas emission thresholds and/or have made recommendations for how to identify a threshold. However, the thresholds for projects in the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD remain in flux. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association explored a variety of threshold approaches but did not recommend one approach (2008). The ARB recommended approaches for setting interim significance thresholds (California Air Resources Board 2008b), in which a draft industrial project threshold suggests that non-transportation related emissions under 7,000 MTCO2e per year would be less than significant; however, the ARB has not approved those thresholds and has not published anything since then. The SCAQMD is in the process of developing thresholds, as discussed below.

SCAQMD Threshold Development

On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an interim greenhouse gas significance threshold for stationary sources, rules, and plans where the SCAQMD is lead agency (SCAQMD permit threshold). The SCAQMD permit threshold consists of five tiers. However, the SCAQMD is not the lead agency for this project. Therefore, the five permit threshold tiers do not apply to the proposed project.

The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”); however, the SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds as of the date of the Notice of Preparation. The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:

 Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
 Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
 Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
□ All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
□ Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
□ Based on land type: Industrial (where SCAQMD is the lead agency), 10,000 MTCO2e per year.  Tier 4 has the following options:
□ Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual (BAU) by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
□ Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures. □ Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; □ Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans.  Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because 75 250
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 76 19480
most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/year). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to BACT for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.

SCAQMD Working Group

Since neither the CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial uses.

In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a working group and adopted Rules 2700, 2701, 2702, and 3002 which are described below.

SCAQMD Rules 2700 and 2701

The SCAQMD adopted Rules 2700 and 2701 on December 5, 2008, which establishes the administrative structure for a voluntary program designed to quantify GHG emission reductions. Rule 2700 establishes definitions for the various terms used in Regulation XXVII – Global Climate Change. Rule 2701 provides specific protocols for private parties to follow to generate certified GHG emission reductions for projects within the district. Approved protocols include forest projects, urban tree planting, and manure management.

The SCAQMD is currently developing additional protocols for other reduction measures. For a GHG emission reduction project to qualify, it must be verified and certified by the SCAQMD Executive Officer, who has 60 days to approve or deny the Plan to reduce GHG emissions. Upon approval of the Plan, the Executive Officer issues required to issue a certified receipt of the GHG emission reductions within 90 days.

SCAQMD Rule 2702

The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2702 on February 6, 2009, which establishes a voluntary air quality investment program from which SCAQMD can collect funds from parties that desire certified GHG emission reductions, pool those funds, and use them to purchase or fund GHG emission reduction projects within two years, unless extended by the Governing Board. Priority will be given to projects that result in co-benefit emission reductions of GHG emissions and criteria or toxic air pollutants within environmental justice areas. Further, this voluntary program may compete with the cap-and-trade program identified for implementation in CARB’s Scoping Plan, or a federal cap and trade program.

SCAQMD Rule 3002

The SCAQMD amended Rule 3002 on November 5, 2010, to include facilities that emit greater than 100,000 tons per year of CO2e are required to apply for a Title V permit by July 1, 2011. A Title V permit is for facilities that are considered major sources of emissions.

76 251
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 77 19480
Local – City of Ontario

The City of Ontario adopted the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) in December of 2014. The CCAP includes a GHG emissions reduction target of 30 percent below 2020 business as usual (BAU) emissions, consistent with the goals of AB 32. The CCAP also establishes a threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the City of Ontario CCAP includes the following components:

 A community-wide GHG emissions reduction target that will substantially lessen the cumulative impact.
 Measures that new development projects must follow to meet the City’s reduction target and substantially lessen the cumulative impact.
 A set of GHG emission inventories that provides quantitative facts and analysis of how the measures within the CAP meet the reduction target that substantially lessens the cumulative impact.  An implementation, monitoring, and update program to ensure that the reduction target is met.

Through SANBAG, the City of Ontario forms the Ontario Chapter of the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan, which was updated in March 2021. The City of Ontario selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 40 percent below its 2016 emissions level in 2030. Unlike other Partnership jurisdictions within the County’s Regional Plan, the City of Ontario is required to meet this goal, as it was adopted as mitigation to the City’s General Plan. As stated in the County’s Regional Plan, the City of Ontario is unique from other Partnership jurisdictions as they are completing a comprehensive CAP, in parallel to the County’s Regional Plan. Using the reduction tools for the County’s Regional Plan, the City identified similar measures to those that will likely form Ontario’s actual CAP.

SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines

The CEQA Guidelines recommend that a lead agency consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

 The extent to which the project may increase (or reduce) GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
 Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
 The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions 17.

Thresholds of Significance for this Project

To determine whether the project's GHG emissions are significant, this analysis uses the City of Ontario CCAP and SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses.

METHODOLOGY

The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water, and construction equipment. The following provides the methodology used to calculate the project-related GHG emissions and the project impacts.

17 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommendations include a requirement that such a plan must be adopted through a public review process and include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. 77 252
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 78 19480

CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the proposed project. The CalEEMod Annual Output for year 2023 is available in Appendix D. Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below.

Area Sources

Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. No changes were made to the default area source emissions.

Energy Usage

Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Mobile Sources

Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed by inputting the project-generated vehicular trips from the LOS & VMT Screening Assessment into the CalEEMod Model. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. See Section 2 for details.

Waste

Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the proposed project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. AB 341 requires that 75 percent of waste be diverted from landfills by 2020, reductions for this are shown in the mitigated CalEEMod output values. No other changes were made to the default waste parameters.

Water

Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. No changes were made to the default water usage parameters.

Construction

The construction-related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009.

The construction-related GHG emissions were calculated by CalEEMod and in the manner detailed above in Section 2.

PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The GHG emissions have been calculated based on the parameters described above. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 21 and the CalEEMod Model run for the proposed project is provided in Appendix D. Table 21 shows that the total for the proposed project’s emissions (without credit for any reductions from sustainable design and/or regulatory requirements) would be 696.41 MTCO2e per year. According to the thresholds of significance established above, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on-going operations of the proposed project would exceed the City of Ontario CCAP and SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Therefore, operation 78 253
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 79 19480
of the proposed project would not create a significant cumulative impact to global climate change. No mitigation is required.

79 254
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage2 0.00 33.17 33.17 0.00 0.00 33.35
Mobile Sources3 0.00 554.33 554.33 0.02 0.06 572.86
Waste4 11.44 0.00 11.44 0.68 0.00 28.35
Water5 4.40 32.03 36.43 0.45 0.01 51.07
Construction6

0.00 10.63 10.63 0.00 0.00 10.77
Total Emissions 15.85 630.16 646.01 1.16 0.07 696.41
3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 for Opening Year 2023. (1) Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. (2) Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. (3) Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. (4) Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. (5) Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. (6) Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate.

City of Ontario CCAP & SCAQMD Screening Threshold
Category
Table 21
Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
80 255
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 81 19480

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLANS AND POLICIES

The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As stated previously, the City of Ontario has a CCAP which includes goals consistent with the goals of AB 32; however, the targets stated in the CCAP were for the year 2020, which has since past. In addition, the City forms the Ontario Chapter of the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan. The City of Ontario selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 40 percent below its 2016 emissions level in 2030, consistent with the goals of SB-32 and the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project has been compared to the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan and SB-32.

SB-32

As stated previously, the SCAQMD's tier 3 thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets:

 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels
 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which was phased in starting in 2012. Therefore, as the project's emissions meet the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types (in compliance with Executive Order S-3-05), the project's emissions also comply with the goals of AB 32. Additionally, as the project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by the SCAQMD, the project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB-32. Furthermore, the majority of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect.

Scoping Plan

Emission reductions in California alone would not be able to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. However, California’s actions set an example and drive progress towards a reduction in greenhouse gases elsewhere. If other states and countries were to follow California’s emission reduction targets, this could avoid medium or higher ranges of global temperature increases. Thus, severe consequences of climate change could also be avoided.

The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.

This Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

In May 2014, CARB released its First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update identifies the next steps for California’s leadership on climate change. While California continues on its path 81 256
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 82 19480
to meet the near-term 2020 greenhouse gas limit, it must also set a clear path toward long-term, deep GHG emission reductions. This report highlights California’s success to date in reducing its GHG emissions and lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

In November 2017, CARB release the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-term climate goals.

Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

As the latest, 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed in Table 22. As shown in Table 22, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact.

At a level of 696.41 MTCO2e per year, the project's GHG emissions do not exceed the City of Ontario CCAP and SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses and would be in compliance with the reduction goals of the CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32 and SB-32. Furthermore, the project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Ontario’s policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan and CCAP). Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

82 257
Table 22 (1 of 2)
Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero- emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

No conflict. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

No conflict. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2019 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The project will be subject to these mandatory standards.

High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases.

No conflict. CARB identified five measures that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will comply with the strategy.

Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero- waste.

No conflict. The state is currently developing a regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as any City recycling and waste reduction programs, which comply with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.

Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water.

No conflict. The project will comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements.

Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
83 258
Table 22 (2 of 2)
Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures 2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.

No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project, that are required to comply with the standards, will comply with the strategy.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

No conflict. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

No conflict. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as any City recycling and waste reduction programs, which comply with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.

Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008 and 2017)
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
84 259
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 85 19480

CUMULATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS

Although the project is expected to emit GHGs, the emission of GHGs by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change.

Therefore, in the case of global climate change, the proximity of the project to other GHG emission generating activities is not directly relevant to the determination of a cumulative impact because climate change is a global condition. According to CAPCOA, “GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non- cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.”18 The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change.

The state has mandated a goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, even though statewide population and commerce are predicted to continue to expand. In order to achieve this goal, CARB is in the process of establishing and implementing regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h(3),19 the City, as lead agency, has determined that the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and global climate change would be less than significant if the project is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions.

As discussed in the Consistency With Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and Policies section above, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Ontario CCAP and CARB Scoping Plan.

Thus, given the project’s consistency with the City of Ontario CCAP and CARB Scoping Plan.as well as the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for all land uses, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Given this consistency, it is concluded that the project’s incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable.

18 Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, (2008). 19 The State CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the State CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction program renders a cumulative impact insignificant. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such a plan or program must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” 85 260
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 86 19480

5. ENERGY ANALYSIS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section provides an overview of the existing energy conditions in the project area and region.

Overview

California’s estimated annual energy use as of 2020 included:

 Approximately 272,576 gigawatt hours of electricity;20  Approximately 2,074,302 million cubic feet of natural gas per year; 21 and  Approximately 23.2 billion gallons of transportation fuel (for the year 2015). 22

As of 2019, the year of most recent data currently available by the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), energy use in California by demand sector was:

 Approximately 39.4 percent transportation;
 Approximately 23.1 percent industrial;
 Approximately 18.7 percent residential; and
 Approximately 18.8 percent commercial.23

California's electricity in-state generation system generates approximately 190,913 gigawatt-hours each year.

In 2020, California produced approximately 70 percent of the electricity it uses; the rest was imported from the Pacific Northwest (approximately 15 percent) and the U.S. Southwest (approximately 15 percent). Natural gas is the main source for electricity generation at approximately 48.34 percent of the total in-state electric generation system power as shown in Table 23.

A summary of and context for energy consumption and energy demands within the State is presented in “U.S.

Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates, Quick Facts” excerpted below:

 California was the seventh-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states in 2018, and, as of January 2019, it ranked third in oil refining capacity.
 California is the largest consumer of jet fuel among the 50 states and accounted for one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption in 2018.
 California’s total energy consumption is the second-highest in the nation, but, in 2018, the State’s per capita energy consumption ranked the fourth-lowest, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
 In 2018, California ranked first in the nation as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources and fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation.

20 California Energy Commission. Energy Almanac. Total Electric Generation. [Online] 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation 21 Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] October 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
22 California Energy Commission. Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018-2030. [Online] April 19, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/assessments/
23 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector.

California State Profile and Energy Estimates.[Online] January 16, 2020 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2 86 261
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 87 19480
 In 2018, large- and small-scale solar PV and solar thermal installations provided 19% of California’s net electricity generation24.

As indicated above, California is one of the nation’s leading energy‐producing states, and California per capita energy use is among the nation’s most efficient. Given the nature of the proposed project, the remainder of this discussion will focus on the three sources of energy that are most relevant to the project—namely, electricity and natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the proposed project.

Electricity

Electricity would be provided to the project by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electric power to more than 15 million persons, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. 25 SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including: fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out‐of‐state suppliers.26

Table 24 identifies SCE’s specific proportional shares of electricity sources in 2020. As shown in Table 24, the 2020 SCE Power Mix has renewable energy at 30.9 percent of the overall energy resources, of which biomass and waste is at 0.1 percent, geothermal is at 5.5 percent, eligible hydroelectric is at 0.8 percent, solar energy is at 15.1 percent, and wind power is at 9.4 percent; other energy sources include large hydroelectric at 3.3 percent, natural gas at 15.2 percent, nuclear at 8.4 percent, other at 0.3 percent, and unspecified sources at 42 percent.

Natural Gas

Natural gas would be provided to the project by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). The following summary of natural gas resources and service providers, delivery systems, and associated regulation is excerpted from information provided by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 11 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller investor-owned natural gas utilities. The CPUC also regulates independent storage operators Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage and Gill Ranch Storage.

The vast majority of California's natural gas customers are residential and small commercial customers, referred to as "core" customers. Larger volume gas customers, like electric generators and industrial customers, are called "noncore" customers. Although very small in number relative to core customers, noncore customers consume about 65% of the natural gas delivered by the state's natural gas utilities, while core customers consume about 35%.

The PUC regulates the California utilities' natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities' transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering and billing.

Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. In 2017, for example, California utility customers received 38% of their natural gas supply from basins located in the U.S. Southwest, 27% from Canada, 27% from the U.S. Rocky Mountain area, and 8% from production located in California.”27

24 State Profile and Energy Estimates. Independent Statistics and Analysis. [Online] [Cited: January 16, 2020.] http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs2.
25 https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are/leadership/our-service-territory 26 California Energy Commission. Utility Energy Supply plans from 2015. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/supply_forms.html 27California Public Utilities Commission. Natural Gas and California. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/ 87 262
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 88 19480

Transportation Energy Resources

The project would attract additional vehicle trips with resulting consumption of energy resources, predominantly gasoline and diesel fuel. Gasoline (and other vehicle fuels) are commercially provided commodities and would be available to the project patrons and employees via commercial outlets.

The most recent data available shows the transportation sector emits 40 percent of the total greenhouse gases in the state and about 84 percent of smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx). 28,29 About 28 percent of total United States energy consumption in 2019 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another. In 2019, petroleum comprised about 91 percent of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. 30 In 2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, an average of about 337 million gallons (or about 8.03 million barrels) per day.31

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the state level, the PUC and the California Energy Commissions (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant federal and state energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below.

Federal Regulations

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards

First established by the U.S. Congress in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) jointly administer the CAFE standards. The U.S. Congress has specified that CAFE standards must be set at the “maximum feasible level” with consideration given for: (1) technological feasibility; (2) economic practicality; (3) effect of other standards on fuel economy; and (4) need for the nation to conserve energy. 32

Issued by NHTSA and EPA in March 2020 (published on April 30, 2020 and effective after June 29, 2020), the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule would maintain the CAFE and CO2 standards applicable in model year 2020 for model years 2021 through 2026. The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 mpg and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012.33

28 CARB. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2020 Edition. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm 29 CARB. 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emseic1_query.php?F_DIV=- 4&F_YR=2012&F_SEASON=A&SP=SIP105ADJ&F_AREA=CA
30 US Energy Information Administration. Use of Energy in the United States Explained: Energy Use for Transportation. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation 31 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
32 https://www.nhtsa.gov/lawsregulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. 33 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and- engines/safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-final-rule. 88 263
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 89 19480
Intermodal Surface transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter‐ modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.

The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21)

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21) was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.

State Regulations

Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)

Senate Bill 1389 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the State’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety. The Energy Commission prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report.

The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2019 IEPR) was adopted February 20, 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2019 IEPR focuses on a variety of topics such as decarbonizing buildings, integrating renewables, energy efficiency, energy equity, integrating renewable energy, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, natural gas assessment, transportation energy demand forecast, and the California Energy Demand Forecast.34

State of California Energy Plan

The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

34 California Energy Commission. Final 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. February 20, 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019-integrated-energy-policy-report 89 264
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 90 19480
California Building Standards Code (Title 24)

The California Building Standards Code Title 24 was previously discussed in Section 4 of this report.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) were adopted to ensure that building construction and system design and installation achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 standards) are the 2019 Title 24 standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards include efficiency improvements to the lighting and efficiency improvements to the non-residential standards include alignment with the American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. For example, window operation is no longer a method allowed to meet ventilation requirements, continuous operation of central forced air system handlers used in central fan integrated ventilation system is not a permissible method of providing the dwelling unit ventilation airflow, and central ventilation systems that serve multiple dwelling units must be balanced to provide ventilation airflow to each dwelling unit. In addition, requirements for kitchen range hoods were also provided in the updated Section 120.1. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality included both additions and revisions in the 2019 Code. This section now requires nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings to have air filtration systems that use forced air ducts to supply air to occupiable spaces to have air filters. Further, the air filter efficiency must be either MERV 13 or use a particle size efficiency rating specific in the Energy Code AND be equipped with air filters with a minimum 2-inch depth or minimum 1-inch depth if sized according to the equation 120.1- A. If natural ventilation is to be used the space must also use mechanical unless ventilation openings are either permanently open or controlled to stay open during occupied times.

All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The 2016 residential standards were estimated to be approximately 28 percent more efficient than the 2013 standards, whereas the 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately 7 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Furthermore, once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately 53 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings are estimated to be approximately 30 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 11)

The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.

As previously discussed in Section 4 of this report, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2019 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle. HCD modified the best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention adding Section 5.106.2 for projects that disturb one or more acres of land. This section requires projects that disturb one acre or more of land or less than one acre of land but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale must comply with the postconstruction requirement detailed in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The NPDES permits require postconstruction 90 265
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 91 19480
runoff (post-project hydrology) to match the preconstruction runoff pre-project hydrology) with installation of postconstruction stormwater management measures.

HCD amended section 5.106.5.3.5 allowing future charging spaces to qualify as designated parking for clean air vehicles.

HCD updated section 5.303.3.3 in regard to showerhead flow rates. This update reduced the flow rate to 1.8 GPM.

HCD amended section 5.304.1 for outdoor potable water use in landscape areas and repealed sections

5.304.2 and 5.304.3. The update requires nonresidential developments to comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resource’s’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent. Some updates were also made in regard to the outdoor potable water use in landscape areas for public schools and community colleges.

Senate Bill 100

Senate Bill 350

As previously discussed in Section 4 of this report, Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) was signed into law October 7, 2015, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. In addition, SB 350 requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. To help ensure these goals are met and the greenhouse gas emission reductions are realized, large utilities will be required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). These IRPs will detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ramp up the deployment of clean energy resources.

91 266
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 92 19480
Assembly Bill 32

As discussed in Section 4 of this report, in 2006 the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective. Please see Section 4 for further detail on AB 32.

Assembly Bill 1493/Pavley Regulations

As discussed in Section 4 of this report, California Assembly Bill 1493 enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.

In 2005, the CARB submitted a “waiver” request to the EPA from a portion of the federal Clean Air Act in order to allow the State to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards for CO 2 and other GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On December 19, 2007 the EPA announced that it denied the “waiver” request. On January 21, 2009, CARB submitted a letter to the EPA administrator regarding the State’s request to reconsider the waiver denial. The EPA approved the waiver on June 30, 2009.

Executive Order S-1-07/Low Carbon Fuel Standard

As discussed in Section 4 of this report, Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.

On April 23, 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard. The low carbon fuel standard is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. The low carbon fuel standard is designed to provide a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Separate standards are established for gasoline and diesel fuels and the alternative fuels that can replace each. The standards are “back-loaded”, with more reductions required in the last five years, than during the first five years. This schedule allows for the development of advanced fuels that are lower in carbon than today’s fuels and the market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles. It is anticipated that compliance with the low carbon fuel standard will be based on a combination of both lower carbon fuels and more efficient vehicles.

California Air Resources Board

CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars Program

Closely associated with the Pavley regulations, the Advanced Clean Cars emissions control program was approved by CARB in 2012. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles for model years 2015–2025.15 The components of the Advanced Clean Cars program include the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria 92 267
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 93 19480
pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in the 2018 through 2025 model years.35

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling

The Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 10, Section 2435) was adopted to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. This section applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. Reducing idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles reduces the amount of petroleum-based fuel used by the vehicle.

Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen, and other Criteria Pollutants, form In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles

The Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 2025) was adopted to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles. This regulation is phased, with full implementation by 2023. The regulation aims to reduce emissions by requiring the installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission- controlled models. The newer emission-controlled models would use petroleum-based fuel in a more efficient manner.

Sustainable Communities Strategy

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction mandates established in AB 32.

As previously stated in Section 4 of this report, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy or alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.

The proposed project is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) jurisdiction, which has authority to develop the SCS or APS. For the SCAG region, the targets set by CARB are at eight percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 19 percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2035. These reduction targets became effective October 2018.

Local – Ontario Plan

The Ontario Plan contains the following goals and policies related to energy use.

35 California Air Resources Board, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, January 18, 2017. www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm. 93 268
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 94 19480
Goal ER3 Cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through a combination of low impact building, site and neighborhood energy conservation and diverse sources of energy generation that collectively helps to minimize the region’s carbon footprint.

Policies
ER3-1 Conservation Strategy. We require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable energy-saving standards.

ER3-2 Green Development– Communities. We require the use of best practices identified in green community rating systems to guide the planning and development of all new communities.

ER3-3 Building and Site Design. We require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation.

ER3-4 Green Development– Public Buildings. We require all new and substantially renovated City buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve a LEED Silver Certification standard, as determined by the U.S. Green Building Council.

ER3-5 Fuel Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. We purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.

ER3-6 Generation- Renewable Sources. We promote the use of renewable energy sources to serve public and private sector development.

PROJECT ENERGY DEMANDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES

Evaluation Criteria

In compliance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, this report analyzes the project’s anticipated energy use to determine if the project would:

 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or  Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

In addition, Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following:

 Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
 Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and  Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Methodology

Information from the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in Appendix B and D, utilized for air quality and greenhouse gas analyses in Sections 2 and 4 of this report, were also utilized for this analysis.

The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands.

94 269
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 95 19480
Construction Energy Demands

The construction schedule is anticipated to occur no sooner than the beginning of February 2023 to November 2023 and be completed in one phase. Staging of construction vehicles and equipment will occur on-site. The approximately 9-month schedule is relatively short and the project site is approximately 3.03 acres.

Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates

As stated previously, Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison. The focus within this section is the energy implications of the construction process, specifically the power cost from on-site electricity consumption during construction of the proposed project. Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017) 36, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with a 59,984 square foot industrial building. Based on Table 25, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $1,252.47. As shown in Table 25, the total electricity usage from project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 9,634 kWh.

Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates

Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of project construction. Fuel consumed by construction equipment was evaluated with the following assumptions:

 Construction schedule of 9 months
 All construction equipment was assumed to run on diesel fuel  Typical daily use of 8 hours, with some equipment operating from ~6-7 hours  Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/gallon (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines: (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf).  Diesel fuel would be the responsibility of the equipment operators/contractors and would be sources within the region.
 Project construction represents a “single-event” for diesel fuel demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources during long term operation.

Using the CalEEMod data input for the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 4 of this report), the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average, aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr- gal. Table 26 shows the results of the analysis of construction equipment.

As presented in Table 26, project construction activities would consume an estimated 23,720 gallons of diesel fuel. As stated previously, project construction would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.

Construction Worker Fuel Estimates

It is assumed that construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA), light duty truck 1 (LDT1), and light duty truck 2 (LDT2) at a mix of 50 percent/25 percent/25 percent, respectively, along area roadways. 37

36 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 37 CalEEMod User’s Guide (May 2021) states that the CalEEMod default fleet mix for worker trips includes light duty autos and light duty trucks, LDA, LDT1, LDT2, at a mix of 50%/25%/25%, respectively. 95 270
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 96 19480
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 132,227 VMT.

Data regarding project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2020.4.0 model defaults.

Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 4 of this report) using information generated using CARB’s 2021 EMFAC model (see Appendix D for details). An aggregate fuel efficiency of 27.7 miles per gallon (mpg) was used to calculate vehicle miles traveled for construction worker trips. Table 27 shows that an estimated 4,774 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.

Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates

Tables 28 and 29 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during grading, building construction, and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 41,754 VMT. Data regarding project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2020.4.0 model defaults.

For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles. Therefore, vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading and building construction would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with an average fuel consumption of 7.69 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 5.97 mpg for heavy heavy- duty trucks (see Appendix D for details). 38 Tables 28 and 29 show that an estimated 6,482 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips.

Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures

Construction equipment used over the approximately nine-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

The project would utilize construction contractors which practice compliance with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with these measures would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and would minimize or eliminate wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption.

Additionally, as required by California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing or eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment.

Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by County building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.

Operational Energy Demands

Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

38 CalEEMod User’s Guide (May 2021) states that the CalEEMod default fleet mix for vendor trips includes medium-heavy duty and heavy-heavy duty trucks, MHDT and HHDT, at a mix of 50%/50%. 96 271
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 97 19480

Transportation Fuel Consumption

Using the CalEEMod output from the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 4 of this report), it is assumed that an average trip for autos and light trucks was assumed to be 16.6 miles and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 40 miles. 39 As the project includes the development of the site with industrial uses; therefore, in order to present a worst-case scenario, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 30 shows the estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.40

The proposed project would generate 103 trips per day. The vehicle fleet mix was used from the CalEEMod output. Table 30 shows that an estimated 86,178 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.

Trip generation and VMT generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar industrial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (20 th Edition, 2017). That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Furthermore, the state of California consumed approximately 4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015. 41,42 Therefore, the increase in fuel consumption from the proposed project is insignificant in comparison to the State’s demand. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas)

Building operation and site maintenance (including landscape maintenance) would result in the consumption of electricity (provided by Southern California Edison) and natural gas (provided by Southern California Gas Company). The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output from the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 4 of this report) and are provided in Table 31.

As shown in Table 31, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 150,750 kWh per year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 9,866 million kWh of electricity.43 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 120,568 kBTU per year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 260 million therms of gas. 44 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2020 non-residential sector demand.

Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building such as in plug-in appliances. In California, the California Building Standards Code Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting. Non-building energy use, or “plug-in” energy use can be further subdivided by specific end-use (refrigeration, cooking, appliances, etc.).

39 CalEEMod default distance for H-W (home-work) or C-W (commercial-work) is 16.6 miles; 6.9 miles for H-O (home-other), C-NW (commercial non-work) or C-O (commercial-other). However, due to the project’s industrial use the distance for H-O (home-other) or C-NW (commercial non-work) was changed to 40 miles per SCAQMD recommendations. 40 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2021 for opening year (2023). See Appendix D for EMFAC output.
41 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics 42 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics 43 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 44 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 97 272
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 98 19480

Furthermore, the proposed project energy demands in total would be comparable to other non-residential projects of similar scale and configuration. Therefore, the project facilities’ energy demands and energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLAN CONSISTENCY

Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area. Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area.

Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company.

Regarding Pavley (AB 1493) regulations, an individual project does not have the ability to comply or conflict with these regulations because they are intended for agencies and their adoption of procedures and protocols for reporting and certifying GHG emission reductions from mobile sources.

Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CALGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.

As shown in Section 4 above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals of the City of Ontario CCAP, SB-32, and CARB Scoping Plan.

CONCLUSIONS

As supported by the preceding analyses, project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed project does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities and is industrial project that is not proposing any additional features that would require a larger energy demand than other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration. The energy demands of the project are anticipated to be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The project is consistent with City’s existing land use designation and would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Notwithstanding, the project proposes industrial uses and will not have any long-term effects on an energy provider’s future energy development or future energy conservation strategies.
98 273
California In-
State
Generation
(GWh)
Percent of
California In-
State
Generation
Northwest
Imports
(GWh)
Southwest
Imports
(GWh)
Total Imports
(GWh)
Percent of
Imports
Total
California
Energy Mix
(GWh)
Total
California
Power Mix
317 0.17% 194 6,963 7,157 8.76% 7,474 2.74%
92,298 48.35% 70 8,654 8,724 10.68% 101,022 37.06%
16,280 8.53% 672 8,481 9,154 11.21% 25,434 9.33%
30 0.02% - - 0 0.00% 30 0.01%
384 0.20% 125 9 134 0.16% 518 0.19%
17,938 9.40% 14,078 1,259 15,337 18.78% 33,275 12.21%
- 0.00% 12,870 1,745 14,615 17.90% 14,615 5.36%
63,665 33.35% 13,184 13,359 26,543 32.50% 90,208 33.09% 5,680 2.97% 975 25 1,000 1.22% 6,679 2.45%
11,345 5.94% 166 1,825 1,991 2.44% 13,336 4.89%
3,476 1.82% 320 2 322 0.39% 3,798 1.39%
29,456 15.43% 284 6,312 6,596 8.08% 36,052 13.23%
13,708 7.18% 11,438 5,197 16,635 20.37% 30,343 11.13%
190,913 100% 41,193 40,471 81,663 100% 272,576 100%
(1)
Geothermal
Somall Hydro
Table 23
Total Electricity System Power (California 2020)
Other (Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat)
Large Hydro
Unspecified Sources of Power
Renewables
Biomass
Fuel Type
Coal
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Oil
Solar
Wind
Total
Notes:

Source: California Energy Commission. 2020 Total System electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity- data/2020-total-system-electric-generation
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
99 274
2020 SCE Power Mix

30.9%

0.1%

5.5%

0.8%

15.1%

9.4%

0.0%

3.3%

15.2%

8.4%

0.3%

42.0%
100%
(1)
*
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2020PowerContentLabel.pdf Unspecified sources of power means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.

Natural Gas
Nuclear
Other
Unspecified Sources of power*
Total
Notes:

Large Hydroelectric
Table 24
SCE 2020 Power Content Mix
Energy Resources
Eligible Renewable
Biomass & Biowaste
Geothermal
Eligible Hydroelectric
Solar
Wind
Coal
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
100
275
Total Building Size
(1,000 Square Foot)
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost

59.984 9 $1,252.47
Table 25
Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage
Power Cost
(per 1,000 square foot of building per
month of construction)
$2.32
Cost per kWh Total Project Construction Electricity Usage (kWh) $0.13 9,634
*Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE. https://www.sce.com/regulatory/tariff-books/rates-pricing-choices Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
101
276
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor HP hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel fuel)1
6 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 613 199
6 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 790 256
6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 97 0.37 502 163
185 Cranes 1 8 231 0.29 536 5,359
185 Forklifts 2 7 89 0.2 249 2,492
185 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 497 4,973
185 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 97 0.37 431 4,307
185 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 497 4,968
10 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56 40 22
10 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 437 236
10 Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36 380 205
10 Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 486 263
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 287 155
10 Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 225 121
23,720
Notes:
(1)
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel)
Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Table 26
Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
Grading
Paving
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
102
277
Number of Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)2
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
6 10 14.7 882 27.7 32
185 47 14.7 127,817 27.7 4,614
10 15 14.7 2,205 27.7 80
10 9 14.7 1,323 27.7 48
4,774
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Table 27
Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Building Construction
Paving
CalEEMod worker vehicle class is based on an LD_Mix, which, per CalEEMod User's Guide (May 2021), inlcudes LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 at a mix of 50%/25%/25%, respectively.

Architectural Coating
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption
Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.

Grading
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
103
278
Number of Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)2
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
6 0 6.9 0 6.83 0
185 19 6.9 24,254 6.83 3,551
10 0 6.9 0 6.83 0
10 0 6.9 0 6.83 0
3,551
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Table 28
Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD & HHD Trucks) 1 Phase
Building Construction
Paving
CalEEMod vendor vehicle class is based on an HDT_Mix, which, per CalEEMod User's Guide (May 2021), inlcudes HHDT and MHDT at a mix of 50%/50%.

Architectural Coating
Total Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption
Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.

Grading
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
104
279
Number of Days
Total Hauling
Trips
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
6 875 20 17,500 5.97 2,931
185 0 20 0 5.97 0
10 0 20 0 5.97 0
10 0 20 0 5.97 0
2,931
Notes:
(1)
Architectural Coating
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption
Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.

Grading
Table 29
Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) 1 Phase
Building Construction
Paving
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
105
280
Vehicle Mix
Number of
Vehicles
Average Trip
(miles)1 Daily VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Automobile 30 16.6 498 29.76 16.73 6,108
Automobile 4 16.6 66 28.21 2.35 859
Automobile 13 16.6 216 23.05 9.36 3,417
Automobile 11 16.6 183 19.28 9.47 3,457
2-Axle Truck 5 16.6 83 14.37 5.78 2,108
2-Axle Truck 2 16.6 33 17.53 1.89 691
3-Axle Truck 7 40 280 7.69 36.41 13,290
4-Axle Truck 23 40 920 5.97 154.10 56,248
103 -- 2,279 18.23 236.11 --
86,178
Notes:
(1) Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.

Total
Total Annual Fuel Consumption
Light Truck
Medium Truck
Light Heavy Truck
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs +
Medium Heavy Truck
Heavy Heavy Truck
Light Truck
Table 30
Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
106
281
kBTU/year1,2
120,568
120,568
kWh/year
139,163
11,587
150,750
Notes:
(1) Taken from the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 annual output (Appendix D of this report).

Total
Electricity Demand
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Total
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Table 31
Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary
Natural Gas Demand
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA and Energy Impact Analysis 19480
107
282
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 108 19480

6. EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES

CONSTRUCTION MEASURES

Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 is required.

No construction mitigation is required.

OPERATIONAL MEASURES

No operational mitigation is required.

108
283
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 109 19480

7. REFERENCES

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

2009 Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects

California Air Resources Board

2004 13 CCR § 2485. July 22.

2008 Resolution 08-43

2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act

2008 ARB Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk – Frequently Asked Questions

2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.

2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document

2013 Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality.

Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm

2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.

2017 California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

2021 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary

City of Ontario

2009 Ontario Plan.

2014 City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan. December.

2020 City of Ontario Municipal Code. December

Ganddini Group, Inc.

2022 Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment. February 9.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

2008 CEQA and Climate: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review

2018 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended

109
284
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 110 19480
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines

San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG)

2021 San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. March.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook

2003 Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis

2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust

2007 2007 Air Quality Management Plan

2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised

2012 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan

2016 2016 Air Quality Management Plan

2021 MATES-V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD Final Report. August.

2021 Historical Data by Year. 2013, 2014 and 2015 Air Quality Data Tables.

Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year

Southern California Association of Governments

2020 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

2017 Understanding Global Warming Potentials
(Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials)

U.S. Geological Survey

2011 Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California

110
285
Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis 111 19480

APPENDICES

Appendix A Glossary of Terms
Appendix B CalEEMod Model Daily Emissions Printouts
Appendix C HRA Assumptions & AERMOD Model Printouts
Appendix D CalEEMod Model Annual Emissions Printouts & EMFAC Data Apx-1
286

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Apx-2
287

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technologies
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HIDPM Hazard Index Diesel Particulate Matter
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SANBAG San Bernardino Association of Governments
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
Apx-3
288

APPENDIX B

CALEEMOD MODEL DAILY EMISSIONS PRINTOUTS
Apx-4
289
19480 Belmont Sultana Warehouse Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 2.55 net acre site w/ 59,984 sf warehouse bldg (~57,984 sf footprint), 19,932 sf landscaping, & a parking lot w/ 44 auto spcs & 2 trailer spcs (rmndr site added under parking lot to acount for paving associated w/ loading dock area).

Construction Phase - Construction anticiapted to begin February 2023 and be completed November 2023. Site vacant, no demo/site prep.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod default construction timing for building construction reduced by ~16%; therefore, ~16% more equipment added to CalEEMod default construciton equipment list for building construction.

Grading - ~7,000 CY import during grading.

Vehicle Trips - Traffic Screening Assessment, 1.71 trips/TSF. %s changed to 65.1% autos (C-W) & 34.9% trucks (C-NW). Per SCAQMD C-NW trip length changed to 40 miles. Trips assumed to be 100% primary.

Fleet Mix - Revised vehicle fleet mix per traffic screening assessment of 65.1% Autos, 5.8% 2-Axle Trucks, 6.8% 3-Axle Trucks and 22.3% 4+ Axle Trucks.

Sequestration - 85 new trees to be planted per landscape plans.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces

19.93 1000sqft

0.46 19,932.00
0 Parking Lot

46.00 Space

0.76 33,106.00
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

59.98 1000sqft

1.33 59,984.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/15/2022 2:10 PM

Page 1 of 22 ends

Ontario City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Ontario City Council
September 19, 2023