Ontario City Council
October 17, 2023

During drilling of the hollow-stem auger borings both bulk and drive samples were obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Driven ring samples were collected from the borings using a Modified California ring-lined sampler conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550.

Representative samples were also collected by conducting the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) within the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. Samples were collected at 5-foot intervals throughout the depth of exploration. In both test methods, the sampler is driven below the bottom of the borehole by a 140-pound weight (hammer) free-falling 30 inches.

The drilling rig was equipped with an automatic hammer to provide greater consistency in the drop height and striking frequency. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of the 18-inch drive interval is termed the “blowcount” or SPT N-value. The N-values provide a measure of relative density in granular (non-cohesive) soils and comparative consistency in cohesive soils. The number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs included in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

The borings were logged in the field by a geologist from our firm. Each soil sample collected was reviewed and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory. After completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete at the surface.
• Percolation Testing – Boring LB-4 /LP-1 and LP-2 were converted to temporary percolation test wells upon completion of drilling and sampling. The test wells consisted of 2-inch diameter slotted (0.020”) PVC well casing surrounded by #3 Monterey Sand placed in the annulus of the borehole within the test zone.

In-situ percolation testing was performed in general accordance with the County of San Bernardino guidelines. The results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data. Additional details regarding the field percolation tests and results are presented in Section 2.4.1, Infiltration.

Upon completion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed from each boring and the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched at the surface with cold-mix asphalt concrete to match existing site conditions. • Laboratory Testing – Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained from the borings during our field exploration. The laboratory testing 1196
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

program was designed to evaluate the physical and engineering characteristics of the onsite soil. Tests performed during this exploration included:
˗ In- situ Moisture Content and Dry Density (ASTM D2216 and ASTM D2937); ˗ Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
˗ Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080)
˗ Consolidation (ASTM D 2435);
˗ One Dimensional Swell or Settlement (ASTM D 4546)
˗ Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D 1557);
˗ Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D 6913);
˗ Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829);
˗ R-value (DOT CA Test 301)
˗ Sand Equivalent Test (DOT CA Test 217); and
˗ Corrosivity Suite – pH, Sulfate, Chloride, and Resistivity (California Test Methods 417, 422, and 532/643).

Results of the in-situ moisture content and dry density testing are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Other laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results
• Engineering Analysis – The data obtained from our background review and field exploration were evaluated and analyzed to develop recommendations for the proposed development.
• Report Preparation – This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed development.
1197
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the Chino Basin in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. Major structural features surround this region, including the Cucamonga fault and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Chino fault and Puente/Chino Hills to the west, and the San Jacinto fault to the east. This is an area of large-scale crustal disturbance as the relatively northwestward moving Peninsular Ranges province collides with the Transverse Ranges province (San Gabriel Mountains) to the north. Several active and potentially active faults have been mapped in the region and are believed to accommodate compression associated with this collision. The Sierra Madre fault, a major structural feature along the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, is located approximately 8.3 miles north of the site. This fault, as well as other faults in the region, has the potential for generating strong ground motions at the project site. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in Section

3.0, Seismic and Geologic Hazards.

The site is located in an area underlain by thick accumulations of alluvial sand, silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders eroded from the mountains and deposited in the site vicinity by the Santa Ana River and smaller tributaries such as the San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek (Morton and Miller, 2006; Dibblee, 2002).

2.2 Surficial Geology
The Quaternary age deposits that cover the floor and margins of the Chino Basin are composed primarily of unconsolidated recent (Holocene) young alluvial fan deposits consisting predominately of sands and gravels derived from the surrounding mountains and hills with finer clays and silts deposited into the basin over the broad floodplain. The surficial geologic units mapped in the vicinity of the project site are shown on Figure 3, Regional Geology Map.

2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
Based on our subsurface explorations, the site is underlain by a relatively thin mantle of undocumented artificial fill materials (Afu) overlying Quaternary-aged (Holocene) young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf).
1198
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

A general description of the encountered soils is presented as follows:

2.3.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
The artificial fill encountered in our borings extended to a depth of approximately 5 feet below grade and likely associated with the existing site improvements. In general, the encountered fill soils consist primarily of sandy silt and silty sand. Localized thicker accumulations of fill materials may be present between explored locations, particularly beneath the existing buildings.

2.3.2 Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) Below the mantle of artificial fill material, Quaternary-aged young alluvial fan deposits were encountered in the borings to the maximum depth explored (approximately 51½ feet). As encountered, this younger alluvial unit consists of stiff to very stiff sandy silt, silty clay, and clay; interbedded with medium dense to dense silty sand, sand with silt, and sand with gravel.

Although relatively variable across the site, in general, fine-grained material is more prevalent in the upper 15 to 25 feet with coarser grained material becoming more frequent at depths of 25 feet or greater.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface soils encountered in the borings are presented on the logs included in Appendix A. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Location Map.

2.4 Engineering Properties
The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C of this report.

Discussion regarding select engineering properties of these soils are described in the following sections based upon the results of the laboratory testing program.

2.4.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics
Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and which shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result.
1199
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

One (1) near-surface bulk soil sample collected from Boring LB-1 was tested for expansion potential. The test results indicate an Expansion Index (EI) value of 18, corresponding to a “Very Low” expansion potential. The Expansion Index laboratory test results are included in Appendix C of this report.

Variance in expansion potential of onsite soil is anticipated; therefore, additional testing is recommended upon completion of site grading and excavation to confirm the expansion potential presented in this report. For purposes of this report and based upon visual characterization of alluvial materials at approximate foundation depth, low expansion potential of site materials may be considered to support design and verified upon completion of earthwork grading.

2.4.2 Soil Corrosivity
One (1) near-surface bulk soil sample collected from Boring LB-3 was tested for corrosivity to assess corrosion potential to buried concrete. The chemical analysis test results for the onsite soil from our geotechnical exploration are included in Appendix C of this report.

The test results indicate a soluble sulfate concentration of 266 parts per million (ppm), chloride content of 40 ppm, pH 7.92, and a minimum resistivity value of 1,335 ohm-cm.

The results of the resistivity tests indicate the underlying soil is severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. Based on the measured water-soluble sulfate contents from the soil samples, concrete in contact with the soil is expected to have negligible exposure to sulfate attack per ACI 318 (ACI, 2014). The samples tested for water-soluble chloride content indicate a low potential for corrosion of steel in concrete due to the chloride content of the soil.

2.4.3 Soil Compressibility
Three (3) samples of the onsite soils recovered from the borings were subjected to consolidation testing to evaluate the compressibility of these materials under assumed loads representative of anticipated structural bearing stresses. The results of testing indicate these soils exhibit a low 1200
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

compressibility potential. The results of testing are presented in Appendix C.

2.4.4 Shear Strength
Evaluation of the shear strength characteristics of the soils included laboratory direct shear testing. The results of testing are included in Appendix C that provide values of angle of internal friction (ø) and cohesion (c) for use in geotechnical analysis.

2.4.5 Excavation Characteristics
Based on our subsurface explorations performed at the site and our experience from grading jobs in the vicinity of the site, we anticipate the onsite artificial fill and alluvial materials can generally be excavated using conventional excavation equipment in good operating condition.

The soils within the planned excavation depths are variable, and locally consist of layers that contain granular, unconsolidated soils with little or no cementation and few fines. These materials are prone to cave in or collapse in unshored excavations. See Section 5.4, Temporary Excavations for additional information on soil type and excavation characteristics.

2.5 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration to the maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs. Based on review of the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Plan 2008 State of the Basin Report (Wildermuth, 2009), groundwater depth at the site is anticipated to be on the order of approximately 225 feet bgs. Review of available information from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2022) for a nearby groundwater monitoring well located approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site (State Well # 01S07W29A001S) indicates the shallowest groundwater level measured for a monitoring period between October 1959 and September 2021 was approximately 214 feet bgs in 1959; with the most recent groundwater levels documented to be on the order of 250 feet bgs.

Based on these findings, groundwater is not expected to pose a constraint during or after construction. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and an increase in soil moisture, should be anticipated during and 1201
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

following the rainy seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff, or from stormwater infiltration.

2.6 Infiltration
Percolation testing was performed in temporary wells installed within borings LB4/LP-1 and LP-2 located in the southern region of the site with test zone at depths of 17 to 22 feet bgs and 15 to 20 feet bgs, respectively. The percolation tests were conducted in general accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B. The test locations and tested depth intervals are shown on Figure 2.

A boring percolation test is useful for field measurements of the infiltration rate of soils, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the infiltration device is deeper than current existing grades, especially in areas where it is difficult to dig test pits, or where the depths of these test pits would be considerably deep. At the subject site, testing consisted of advancing the borings to the anticipated depth for the invert of the proposed infiltration devices.

The Percolation Test Procedure (falling-head test method) as outlined in the County Guidelines was implemented at each percolation test well location. The infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the rate of discharge by the infiltration surface area, or flow area. The volume of discharge was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and within the annulus, and incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the porosity of the annulus material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the test well.

Detailed results of the field testing data and measured infiltration rate for the test well are presented in Appendix B. The test results are summarized in the table below:

Table 1 – Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate
Test Well
Designation
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone (feet bgs)
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
LB-4/LP-1 17 to 22 0.32
LP-2 15 to 20 0.69
1202
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Based on the results of our field percolation testing that was performed at the site, the measured (unfactored) infiltration rates for the two (2) tests performed were

0.32 inches per hour (LB-4/LP-1) and 0.69 inches per hour (LP-2), respectively.

According to the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013), the measured infiltration rate at both test well locations technically exceeds the minimum feasibility criteria of 0.3 inch per hour. However, implementation of a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 as required for the design infiltration rate indicates the depth and location tested for LB-4/LP-1 is considered infeasible for infiltration.

In consideration of the general greater prevalence of coarse-grained material at the site below depths of 25 feet or deeper, a more feasible infiltration rate may be achieved in percolation testing performed at depths greater than those tested during this exploration.
1203
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.0 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Depending upon the geographic location and geologic setting of a particular site in southern California, seismic-related hazards can include surface fault rupture; strong ground shaking; seismically-induced landslides; liquefaction and associated effects such as settlement and/or lateral spreading; and seiches, tsunamis and/or flooding depending upon the proximity of bodies of water. The following sections discuss each of these hazards and potential effect upon this site.

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Known surface faults in the region are mapped on Figure 4, Regional Surface Fault and Historical Seismicity Map. Review of available literature indicates that no known active faults have been mapped across the site, and the site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site. Given an absence of known faults, potential risk for surface fault rupture at this site is low.

3.2 Regional Faulting
The location of the closest active faults to the site was evaluated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS, 2008b). The closest active faults to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture are the Chino fault, San Jose fault, Cucamonga fault and Sierra Madre fault, located approximately 4.7 miles, 6.0 miles, 7.9 miles and 8.3 miles from the site, respectively. The San Andreas fault, which is the largest active fault in California, is approximately 20.3 miles northeast of the site on the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains. As discussed, major regional faults with surface expression in proximity to the site are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historic Seismicity Map.

3.3 Strong Ground Shaking
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California (Figure 4). The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics. Accordingly, design of the project should be performed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards 1204
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). The 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) is the current edition of the code. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced.

The following code-based seismic parameters should be considered for design under the 2019 CBC:

Table 2 – 2019 CBC Based Ground Motion Parameters (Mapped Values) Categorization/Coefficient Code-Based
Site Latitude 34.0275°
Site Longitude -117.6523°
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SS 1.5 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), S1 0.579 g Short Period (0.2 sec) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0
Long Period (1 sec) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.72*
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SMS 1.5 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SM1 0.996* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SDS 1.0 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SD1 0.664* Site Coefficient for Peak Ground Acceleration, FPGA 1.1 Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM 0.644 g

1. All were derived from the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool web page: https://asce7hazardtool.online/

2. All coefficients in units of g (spectral acceleration)

3. *Requires Cs calculation, see Note below.

Based on Table 1613.2.3(2) of the 2019 CBC, the long period site coefficient (Fv) should be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 since the mapped spectral response acceleration at 1 second is greater than 0.2g for Site Class D. In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific seismic analysis is required; however, the values provided herein may be utilized if design 1205
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

is performed in accordance with exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, with special requirements for the seismic response coefficient (Cs) as noted below.

The project structural engineer should review the seismic parameters.

Note: Long period coefficient (Fv) of 1.7 may be utilized for calculation of Ts, provided that the value of the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) is determined by Equation 12.8- 2 for values of the fundamental period of the building (T) less than or equal to 1.5Ts, and taken as 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either equation 12.8-3 for T greater than 1.5 Ts and less than or equal to TL or equation 12.8-4 for T greater than TL.

3.4 Liquefaction Potential
The term liquefaction is generally referenced to loss of strength and stiffness in soils due to build-up of pore water pressure when subject to cyclic or monotonic loading.

Both sandy and clayey soils are susceptible to loss of strength and stiffness.

Because of the difference in strength characteristic and methods for evaluating strength loss potential for granular and clayey soils, the term liquefaction is used for granular soils while cyclic softening is used for fine-grained soils (i.e. clays and plastic silts).

In general, adverse effects of liquefaction or cyclic softening include excessive ground settlement, loss of bearing support for structural foundations, and seismically-induced lateral ground deformations such as lateral spreading.

Depending upon the relative thickness of the liquefied strata with respect to overlying non-liquefiable soils, other potentially adverse effects such as ground oscillation and ground fissuring may occur.

As regionally mapped on the California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (EZRIM) for the Ontario Quadrangle (CGS, 200) and shown on Figure 4, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the site is not within an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C (2010), the project site is not located within a County liquefaction susceptibility zone. The historically shallowest groundwater level recorded by DWR near the site is 214 feet bgs and the recent recorded depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet bgs. Based on these findings, liquefaction is not considered a hazard at the site.

3.5 Seismically-Induced Settlement
Seismically-induced settlement consists of dynamic settlement of unsaturated soil (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). 1206
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

These settlements occur primarily within low density sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

As previously discussed, the site is not considered susceptible to the occurrence of liquefaction. Therefore, seismically-induced settlement will consist solely of densification of non-saturated soils upon exposure to strong ground shaking.

Evaluation of the potential for such seismically-induced settlements to occur was performed for the Geomean Maximum Considered Event (MCEG) and the associated ground motion that corresponds to a 2,475 year average return period (ARP) for the CPT soundings that were advanced to a depth of 50 feet below grade.

The results of the analysis are presented below:

Table 3 – Seismically-Induced Settlement - MCEG Seismic Event Design Scenario CPT
I.D.

Settlement (inches)
PGA MW Liquefaction(1) Non-Liquefaction(2) Total

0.64 6.78 CPT-1 No Liquefaction 0.23 0.23
CPT-2 No Liquefaction 0.09 0.09
CPT-3A No Liquefaction 0.16 0.16
CPT-4 No Liquefaction 0.45 0.45
Notes: (1) Liquefaction-induced settlement; Design Groundwater below depth of 50 feet (2) Non-liquefaction induced (“dry sand”) settlement
The results of the analysis indicated the magnitude of seismically-induced settlement under the MCEG scenario will be less than ½ to 1 inch. Based on the general consistency in soil conditions as depicted by the test borings conducted at the site, the differential settlement is estimated to be approximately ½ inch over a distance of at least 40 feet, which results in an angular distortion less than 0.0021 in./in., which is anticipated to be within tolerable levels for structural design.

3.6 Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Since the site is relatively flat and constrained laterally and liquefaction is not considered a hazard at the site, earthquake-induced lateral spreading is also not considered a hazard at the site. 1207
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.7 Earthquake-Induced Landsliding
As regionally mapped on the California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for the Torrance Quadrangle (CGS, March 25, 1999) and shown on Figure 4, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the site is not located within an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction (CGS, 2000a). Review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C (2010) indicates the project site is not located within a County landslide susceptibility zone. The project site is relatively flat with no significant slopes on or immediately adjacent. It is our opinion that seismically-induced landsliding is not considered a hazard at the site.

3.8 Flooding
According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 2015), the project site is located within a flood hazard area identified as “Zone X”, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.

Regionally, storm runoff flow is generally directed to the southwest. As shown on Figure 5, Flood Hazard Zone Map, the site is not located within a 100-year or 500- year flood hazard zone.

Earthquake-induced flooding can be caused by failure of dams or other waterretaining structures as a result of earthquakes. As shown on Figure 6, Dam Inundation Map, the site is mapped within an inundation zone associated with San Antonio Dam. Catastrophic failure of this dam is expected to be a very unlikely event in that dam safety regulations exist and are enforced by the DOSD, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Water Resources. Inspectors may require dam owners to perform work, maintenance or implement controls if issues are found with the safety of the dam. Due to the location and distance of the site from San Antonio Dam, along with the unlikely failure of the dam, the potential for earthquake-induced flooding to occur due to a failure of this dam is considered low.

3.9 Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the absence of an enclosed water body near the site and the inland location of the site, seiche and tsunami risks at the site are considered negligible.
1208
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.10 Methane
Based on review of State of California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) records, the project site is not located within an oil field boundary (CalGEM, 2021). The nearest documented oil well to the site is located approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the site (API# 0407100083; Donald B.

Lamont, Donald B. Lamont Lease, Well No. 1) and is reported as a plugged dry hole (CalGEM, 2021). Based on these findings, the potential for methane hazard at the site is low.
1209
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
No evidence of adverse geological or geotechnical hazards was noted at the site that will preclude the development of the project as currently planned. Presented below is a summary of findings based upon the results of our geotechnical exploration of the site.

Geotechnical recommendations for design and construction are presented in Section 4.0 of this report.
• The potential for surface fault rupture is considered to be low since the site is not located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. • The site may be subjected to strong ground shaking during the design life of the proposed development due to the proximity of several active faults in the vicinity of the site. The Chino fault, located approximately 4.7 miles southwest of the site is the nearest active fault to the site with a potential for surface rupture and generation of strong ground shaking. However, strong ground shaking may occur at the site due to seismic activity on one of a number of faults in the area. • The site is not located within an area shown as susceptible to liquefaction according to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map for the Ontario Quadrangle or the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C.

Given the lack of shallow groundwater underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered low.
• Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 51½ feet bgs.

Recent nearby groundwater levels as documented by the California Department of Water Resources indicate the depth to groundwater is likely on the order of greater than 200 feet bgs. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to site grading or construction.
• At a minimum, development of the site for support of the proposed mixed-use development should include overexcavation and recompaction of the existing artificial fill materials as well as a portion of the underlying native soils to develop a layer of structural compacted fill to provide foundation support. • The results of the infiltration testing performed at the site indicate stormwater infiltration is marginally feasible based on the tested locations and depths. • The proposed structures may be supported by a shallow foundation system supported on structural compacted fill underlain by suitable bearing native soils. 1210
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon this study, we conclude that the proposed development for the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated in design and construction. Geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development are presented in the following sections and are intended to provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project plans in accordance with 2019 CBC requirements. The following recommendations may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the architect, structural engineer, and/or local building official.

The recommendations below are based upon the exhibited geotechnical engineering properties of the soils and their anticipated response both during and after construction.

The recommendations are also based upon proper field observation and testing during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be notified of suspected variances in field conditions to determine the effect upon the recommendations subsequently presented. These recommendations are considered minimal and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the civil and structural engineers, the City of Ontario, the County of San Bernardino and other governing agencies.

Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans and project specifications as they become available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans for this project.

5.1 Earthwork
All site grading should be performed in accordance with the project specifications that are prepared by the appropriate design professional. The guide specifications presented in Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Recommendations may be used as a guideline in developing the project specifications.

Earthwork and grading operations are recommended to be observed and appropriate testing be performed by representatives of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of fills has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. 1211
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.1.1 Site Preparation
Initial preparation of the site should include demolition and removal of the existing facility from the project site including all foundations, slabs and underground structures. Existing utilities not planned for reuse with the proposed development should be either removed in their entirety, properly abandoned in-place, or rerouted around the development area to preserve their function. Disposal of all debris and remnants of the existing development should be performed in accordance with the type of material and local regulations.

The existing development includes a relatively large paved parking lot that consists of asphalt concrete. Based upon the conditions encountered at the test boring locations, the thickness of the existing asphalt concrete ranged from 2½ to 5 inches underlain by base course that ranged from 3 to 12 inches in thickness. Reuse of the pavement with the proposed development will require consideration of proposed finish grades and the need to construct an asphalt overlay to prolong the service life of the pavement.

Recommendations for reuse of the pavement can be provided upon request. However, for purposes of this report, the existing pavement is assumed to not be salvaged for reuse and will be removed from the site. If properly processed during demolition and removal, the pavement may be reused as the base course for construction of new pavement.

Upon completion of demolition and site clearing activities, the soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. All undocumented fill or man-made debris, unsuitable native soils and former foundation remnants should be excavated and removed from the proposed building/structure footprint prior to fill placement.

5.1.2 Removals and Overexcavations
The recommended depths of overexcavation presented below have been based upon the assumed structural loads and the recommended allowable bearing pressure. The actual depth recommended for preparation of foundation areas may be revised depending upon the actual footing sizes that result from structural design of the foundations. Consequently, the recommendations for building pad preparation/overexcavation should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer as foundation design proceeds. 1212
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

To provide uniform foundation support and reduce the potential for excessive static settlement, all existing undocumented fill and any unsuitable soil, as deemed by the geotechnical engineer, should be removed to expose suitable native soils and replaced as engineered fill below the proposed building and other structural improvements. Based on our field explorations, we estimate removals of existing undocumented fill will be approximately 5 feet below existing grade across most of the site.

Localized areas are anticipated to require deeper removals, in particular beneath the existing buildings and in areas of existing utilities.

Removals should be performed such that all undocumented fill is removed and replaced as engineered fill. In addition, overexcavations should be performed such that a minimum of 4 feet of engineered fill is established below the proposed building foundation elements and the at-grade slabs of the buildings. The lateral extent of overexcavation beyond foundations should be equal to the depth of overexcavation below the proposed foundations as measured at the excavation subgrade.

The depth of overexcavation in non-structural areas planned for new pavement construction is recommended to be 2 feet below the current grade or planned subgrade elevation to develop a suitable bearing subgrade for pavement support. Deeper overexcavations in localized areas may be recommended during grading by a representative of the geotechnical engineer depending on observed subsurface conditions.

5.1.3 Subgrade Preparation
All excavation bottoms or removal bottoms should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill or other improvements to determine that geotechnically suitable soil is exposed.

Excavation bottoms observed to be suitable for fill placement or other improvements should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moistureconditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (Modified Proctor).
1213
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soil, free of organic material, cobbles, boulders, rubble, and rock less than 3 inches in largest dimension, is suitable to be used as structural fill. All fill soil should be placed in loose lifts no greater than 8 inches in thickness, moisture-conditioned as necessary to a moisture content 1 to 2 percentage points above optimum moisture content and compacted using proper equipment to the minimum standard as noted below, unless stated otherwise in the specific sections.
• Fill soil should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557.
• Subgrade exposures should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557
• Base course material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
• Utility trench backfill is discussed in Section 5.5.

Material imported to the site for use as fill should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to import to the site and placement as fill.

Imported soils should be very low in expansion potential (EI less than 20); non-corrosive to metals and concrete; and be free of hazardous substances.

When grading is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations should not be resumed until the moisture content and the dry density of the placed fill are satisfactory.

5.1.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
The change in volume of excavated and recompacted soil varies according to soil type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Field and laboratory data used in our calculations included laboratory-measured maximum dry density for the 1214
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

general soil type encountered at the subject site, the measured in-place densities of near surface soils encountered and our experience.

Earthwork operations are generally anticipated to be limited to soils to a depth of 5 to 6 feet below current grade with some additional overexcavation in localized areas of the site where unsuitable bearing/very loose relative density soils may be encountered in the southern to southwestern region of the site. Data regarding the in-place density of the near surface soils could not be collected due to the manner in which field exploration was encountered whereby the soils to a depth of 5 feet at the boring locations were pre-drilled by use of a hand auger to protect against damaging buried utilities. Therefore, earthwork quantities (shrinkage/bulking) are primarily based upon experience with similar materials at other project sites and the limited available data from soils recovered from a depth of 6 feet.

On a preliminary basis, the existing fill materials requiring removal and recompaction are anticipated to exhibit volume shrinkage on the order of of 10 to 15 percent. The estimated shrinkage does not include material losses due to removal of organic material or other unsuitable bearing materials (debris, rubble, oversize material greater than 6-inches) and the actual shrinkage that occurs during grading may vary throughout the site.

5.1.6 Reuse of Concrete and Asphalt Rubble
If encountered during site clearing and/or during preparation activities, construction rubble (i.e., Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete) may be incorporated in the proposed development. For use as structural fill, the processed material should be crushed to develop a relatively wellgraded mixture with a maximum particle size of 3-inch nominal diameter. Concrete rubble should be free of rebar and processed asphalt pavement rubble may be used if mixed with the existing base course (where present). Processed material may be used as structural fill if uniformly mixed with onsite soils in proportion of 1 part processed material to 3 parts soil. For use as pavement base course, rubble should be crushed to satisfy gradation requirements of Section 200-2.4 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (SSPWC, “Greenbook”). Such materials must be free of and segregated from any hazardous materials and/or organic material of any kind.
1215
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.2 Foundation Design
Preparation of the building areas should be performed as described in Section 5.1 of this report. Upon completion of building pad preparation, the soils that will provide support of the foundations are expected to consist of properly moistureconditioned structural compacted fill that exhibits very low to low expansion potential underlain by suitable bearing native soils.

5.2.1 Vertical Load Bearing Capacity
The proposed structures are recommended to be supported by a shallow foundation system in which continuous strip footings are used for wall support and isolated square pad footings for column support. Footings to support the proposed buildings are recommended to be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for continuous strip footings for wall support and 3,000 psf for isolated square pad footings for column support.

The foundations for ancillary structures separate from the proposed buildings are recommend to be designed for a maximum 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for continuous strip footings for wall support and 2,500 psf for isolated square pad footings for column support. The recommended bearing pressures assume the foundations will be supported by a layer of structural compacted fill that is a minimum 2 feet in thickness below foundations and extends laterally distance of at least 2 feet beyond the edges of the foundations.

The allowable bearing values may be increased by one-third when considering short-term seismic or wind loads. The recommended bearing pressure is net so the unit weight of concrete may be assumed to be 50 pcf when calculating the component of load demand due to foundation weight; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads.

The recommended allowable bearing pressures stated above have been based upon specific minimum footing sizes and embedment depths:
• Minimum widths for foundations are recommended to be 18 inches for continuous strip footings and 24 inches for square pad footings. 1216
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• Minimum footing embedment depth for the isolated exterior footings and the footings for the exterior walls is recommended to be 18 inches. • The minimum embedment depth for interior footings is recommended to be 18 inches.
• The minimum embedment depth for ancillary structures is 18 inches below adjacent subgrade elevation.

The depth of embedment should be determined from the finish subgrade elevation adjacent to the building for the perimeter footings and the finish pad grade within the structure for interior footings. Additional foundation embedment depth may be considered for foundations located close to property lines to protect foundations from being undermined due future excavation that may be performed on the adjacent properties.

Determination of the minimum steel reinforcement requirements of the continuous strip and isolated square pad footings should be performed by the structural engineer.

The foundation bearing soils are recommended to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing reinforcing steel. Evaluation is intended to verify suitable bearing conditions to support the footings and the footing excavations are generally in compliance with foundation plans.

5.2.2 Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction acting along the bottoms of the footings and passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the vertical sides of the foundations provided the foundations are poured neat against properly compacted fill or undisturbed native soils. Resistance to lateral load may be calculated on the basis of an allowable frictional coefficient of 0.30 and allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No reduction will be needed to any of the above two components for computing the total resistance to lateral loads. The use of passive resistance in lateral load analysis requires the foundations to be cast against vertical, undisturbed trench walls or any voids along the footing be backfilled with structural compacted fill.
1217
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.2.3 Settlement Estimate
Estimated post-construction total and differential settlement under the assumed loading conditions and preparation of the building areas as described in this report are estimated to be on the order of 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively. The differential settlement is expected to occur over a minimum span of 30 feet, thereby resulting in an angular distortion less than

0.002, which is expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structures.

Settlement is a function of footing size and contact bearing pressure. As a result, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Leighton should review the settlement estimates when final foundation plans and loads for the proposed structures become available.

5.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors
Upon completion of the recommended building pad preparation, the subgrades of the slabs supported on grade are anticipated to consist of newly placed structural compacted fill, which is generally expected to consist of the existing soils that have been overexcavated and recompacted under engineering controlled conditions.

Based upon the anticipated subgrade conditions, the floor slabs of the proposed buildings that will be supported on grade may be designed and constructed as a mat on elastic foundation using a modulus of subgrade reaction (kv1) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). These slabs are recommended to be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and include No. 3 rebar placed at center of the slab at 18 inches oncenter in each direction based on geotechnical considerations. Increase in the slab thickness and/or reinforcing may be necessary due to structural engineering considerations as determined by the structural engineer.

The slabs may are recommended to be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick coarse granular material to serve as a working mat during construction and serve as a capillary moisture break.

Interior slabs-on-grade are recommended to be underlain by a synthetic sheeting to serve as a retarder to moisture vapor transmission in areas where moisturesensitive floor coverings are used (such as vinyl, tile, or carpet) or storage areas 1218
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

for personal possessions. Prior to installing the synthetic sheeting, the exposed subgrade surface should be clear of all extruding rock and gravel that could damage the sheeting. The sheeting should be evaluated for the presence of punctures or tears by the installer prior to pouring concrete. Installation of the sheeting should include proper overlap and taping of seams.

Appropriate synthetic sheeting should be determined by others qualified in evaluating and mitigating moisture vapor transmission through concrete slabs. Our firm does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person, such as the flooring subcontractor and/or structural engineer, be consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction with respect to the storage facility and retail areas. That person should provide recommendations for mitigation of the potential adverse effects of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures as deemed appropriate.

Care should be taken to avoid slab curling if slabs are poured in hot weather.

Frequent construction joints should be provided to minimize the potential for cracking. Slabs should be designed and constructed as promulgated by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Prior to the slab pour, all utility trenches should be properly backfilled and compacted. Differential settlement of this material could result in movement and distress to hardscape and other improvements. The need to repair cracks, etc. should be anticipated.

5.4 Temporary Excavations
All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations, and other excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Temporary excavations should be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations should be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, to be cut to a ¾H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, 1H:1V for Type B soils, and 1½H:1V for Type C soils. Onsite sandy soils 1219
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

are to be considered Type C soils which are subject to collapse in shallow unbraced excavations (i.e., approximately 3 to 4 feet in vertical height).

OSHA regulations are applicable in areas with no restriction of surrounding ground deformations. Shoring should be designed for areas with deformation restrictions.

The soil type should be verified or revised based on geotechnical observation and testing during construction, as soil classifications may vary over short horizontal distances.

Typical cantilever shoring should be designed based on an active fluid pressure of 38 pcf, assuming level ground above the shoring. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific design intervals, the active pressure may then be approximated by a rectangular soil pressure distribution with the pressure per foot of width equal to 25H psf, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored.

Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, should be kept a minimum distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 feet, whichever is greater, from the excavation unless the excavation is shored and these surcharges are considered in the design of the shoring system.

Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structures.

5.5 Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (SSPWC, “Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Utility trenches can be backfilled with onsite material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to 3 inches in largest dimension. Prior to backfilling trenches, pipes should be bedded in and covered with either:
• Granular Bedding: a) ½-inch open grade aggregate; or b) a uniform sand material with a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than or equal to (≥) 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer).

Testing to evaluate the Sand Equivalent (SE) of representative samples of the near surface soils indicated SE values below 30, thereby indicating the on-site soils may not be suitable for reuse in this manner.
1220
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201- 6 of the SSPWC. CLSM bedding should be placed to 1 foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and vibrated.

Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. The bedding and shading sand is recommended to be densified in place by vibratory, lightweight compaction equipment. Jetting or hydro-consolidation may be suitable for this project site where utility trenches will be underlain by the silty sands, typically present in the upper 5 to 10 feet.

Trench backfill over the pipe bedding zone may consist of native and clean fill soils.

All backfill should be placed in thin lifts (appropriate for the type of compaction equipment), moisture conditioned above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, relative to the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.

5.6 Soil Corrosivity
In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor for corrosion to ferrous metals. The following table presents an approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness.

Table 4 – Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity Soil Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Classification of
Soil Corrosiveness
0 to 900 Very severe corrosion
900 to 2,300 Severely corrosive
2,300 to 5,000 Moderately corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly corrosive
10,000 to >100,000 Very mildly corrosive
Note: 1 ASTM STP 1013 titled Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion (February, 1989).

In addition to resistivity, the concentration of chloride ions can also be used to evaluate corrosive potential to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover or plain steel substructures, such as steel pipes. As a general guideline, the chloride threshold adopted by Caltrans is a concentration of 500 ppm 1221
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

or greater as determined by California Test 532. Concentrations of chloride ions above the stated concentration or other characteristics such as soil resistivity or redox potential may warrant special corrosion protection measures. The results of corrosivity testing are summarized in the following table.

Table 5 – Summary of Corrosivity Testing
Test Parameter Test Results
LB-3 @ 0’-5’ General Classification of Hazard
Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil
(ppm) 260 Negligible sulfate exposure to buried concrete Water-Soluble Chloride in Soil
(ppm) 40 Non-corrosive to buried reinforced
concrete
pH 7.92 Moderately alkaline
Minimum Resistivity
(saturated, ohm-cm) 1,335 Severely corrosive to buried ferrous pipes The results of the resistivity tests indicate the underlying soil is moderately corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. The samples tested for water-soluble chloride content indicate a low potential for corrosion of steel in concrete due to the chloride content of the soil.

Based on the test results, ferrous pipes buried in moist to wet site earth materials should be avoided by using high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and/or other non-ferrous pipe when possible provided the pipe walls possess sufficient strength for the embedment and external loading to which the pipe will be subjected. Ferrous pipe can also be protected by polyethylene bags, tape or coatings, di-electric fittings or other means to separate pipe from on-site soils. If buried ferrous pipes are planned for this site, further corrosivity testing of soil samples should be performed upon completion of rough grading and specific corrosion protection measures should be recommended by a qualified corrosion engineer.

5.7 Cement Type
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. Section 4.3 of ACI 318 (ACI, 2014) provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix-design when the soluble sulfate content of the soil exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 parts per million (ppm).
1222
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

The results of laboratory testing indicated concentrations of soluble sulfate less than 0.1 percent. The test results indicate a sulfate Exposure Class designation of “S0” appears to be appropriate for the project site based upon criteria presented in ACI 318. However, if the concrete is expected to be in contact with reclaimed water, Type V cement and a water/cement ratio of 0.45 should be used. Samples should be collected from the compacted fill subgrade upon completion of grading to confirm the initial findings of this exploration.

5.8 Elevator Pit Wall Design
The proposed development is not expected to include new earth retaining structures due to the generally level topographic relief of the site and no below grade levels associated with the buildings. However, in consideration that the buildings will be multi-stories in height, the buildings are anticipated to include elevators. In the anticipation that elevator equipment will include below-grade pits to house the mechanical workings, design of the pit walls should include provisions to resist the lateral load of the adjacent soils. Based on the recommended building pad parathion and the anticipated soil conditions, design of the pit walls is recommended to be based upon an equivalent lateral earth pressure of 60 psf per foot of retained height.

5.9 Pavements

5.9.1 Pavement Subgrades
The pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.1 of this report. In accordance with the recommendations, preparation of the subgrade within the areas of new pavement construction are recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below the current grade or planned subgrade elevation, or to the depth of undocumented fill whichever is greater, to allow placement of a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill to develop a suitable bearing subgrade for pavement support.

5.9.2 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections
Asphalt pavements are anticipated to be feasible for the proposed development. Based on the anticipated subgrade conditions and the results of laboratory testing conducted on one bulk sample of the near surface soils 1223
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

(LB-1), the following recommendations for pavement design have been based upon a design R-value of 30 for the anticipated subgrade. R-value tests should be performed upon completion of grading to verify the design value is appropriate for the actual subgrade conditions. Based on the design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual and using an R-value of 78 for the pavement base course, the following flexible pavement sections may be used for Traffic Index values that correspond to various levels of vehicle traffic.

Table 6 – Asphalt Pavement Sections
Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Base Course (inches)

CAB CMB
4 or less 3 5 6

5.0 3 6 7

6.0 4 7 8
Notes: CAB – Crushed Aggregate Base Course; Caltrans Class 2, Section 26 or SSPWC Section 200-2.2
CMB – Crushed Miscellaneous Base Course; SSPWC Section 200-2.4 The asphalt concrete should conform to the specifications outlined in Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC, a.k.a. “Greenbook”), and asphalt concrete construction methods should meet the requirements of Section 302-5 of the Green Book.

The base course should conform to requirements of Section 26 of State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans), latest edition, or meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2.2 of the SSPWC (Greenbook). As an alternate, the base course may comply with the specifications for Crushed Miscellaneous Base per SSPWC Section 200-2.4 with an appropriate increase in thickness.

Prior to placement of the base course, the subgrade soil should be processed to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to 1 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Base course should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
1224
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.9.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements
Portland cement concrete is recommended for areas of the development subjected to large loads and truck loading/unloading areas. In such areas, a minimum 6-inch thick Portland Concrete Cement (PCC) pavement section reinforced is recommended. Reinforcement is recommended to consist of No. 4 rebar at a maximum on-center spaced at 16 inches in each direction.

The recommended PCC pavement section was based on the procedures described in the Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 330R-08).

All PCC pavements should have a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 3,000 pounds-per-square-inch (psi). The reinforcement should be evaluated by the civil/structural engineer to accommodate any additional structural loading requirements. Control joints are recommended to be installed at a maximum on-center spacing of 12 feet for 6-inch thick slabs, and should form square panels.

Concrete pavement may be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick layer of compacted granular base to serve as a leveling mat for construction and to assist in load transfer at construction joints.

Integral curbs should be used at the perimeter of PCC pavement.

Longitudinal joints should be avoided near curbs and gutters. Use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of common parking or driveway areas when abutting either open (unfinished) or landscaped areas.

5.10 Concrete Flatwork and Exterior Slabs
Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches.

Common Type II cement should be adequate for concrete flatwork not exposed to recycled water. Type V cement and a water:cement ratio of 0.45 should be used for concrete exposed to recycled water.

Concrete flatwork should be placed on compacted fill. If this material has been disturbed or dried out, the subgrade soil to a depth of 12 inches should be moisture conditioned to 1 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content and recompacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction.
1225
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Exterior concrete driveways, ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks often crack.

Inclusion of joints at frequent intervals and reinforcement will help control the locations of the cracks, and thus reduce the unsightly appearance. Construction or weakened plane joints should be spaced at intervals of 6 feet or less for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The spacing may be increased to 10 feet for ramps and driveways. If cracking occurs, repairs may be needed to mitigate the trip hazard and/or improve the appearance.

Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to expansion, drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected. However, cracking is often aggravated by a high water-to-cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected.

The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Inclusion of joints at frequent intervals and reinforcement will help control the locations of the cracks, and thus improve aesthetics. Control joints should be spaced at intervals no more than 10 feet. If cracking occurs, repairs may be needed to mitigate the trip hazard and/or improve the appearance.

Slab cracking and/or uneven slab surfaces may result due to the presence of fill if the fill is left in place below the slabs. Slab distortion may result in tripping hazards.

Standard methods to mitigate trip hazards include the following:
• Saw Cutting
• Grinding
• Patching and ramping
• Removing and replacement
A regular maintenance program should be implemented to mitigate trip hazards and comply with safety requirements.

5.11 Surface Drainage
Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or new site improvements.

Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away at a minimum of 2 percent for earthen surfaces for a lateral distance of at least five feet and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. 1226
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by the use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade materials. Downspouts should be connected to appropriate outlet devices.

Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without over watering.

5.12 Additional Geotechnical Services
Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans, and specifications when they are available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated.

Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided during the following activities:
• Grading and excavation of the site;
• Subgrade Preparation;
• Compaction of all fill materials;
• Utility trench backfilling and compaction;
• Footing excavation and slab-on-grade preparation;
• Pavement subgrade and base preparation;
• Placement of asphalt concrete and/or concrete; and
• When conditions are encountered on site that are not consistent with the conditions described in this report.
1227
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing at this time in San Bernardino County. We do not make any warranty, either express or implied.

As in many projects, conditions revealed in excavations may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations be developed as needed.

The identification and testing of hazardous, toxic or contaminated materials was outside the scope of Leighton's work. Should such materials be encountered at any time, or their existence be suspected, all measures stipulated in local, County, State and Federal regulations, as applicable, should be implemented.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans; and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

Changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on the subject or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may at some future time be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside Leighton’s control.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a necessarily limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples and tests. Such information can be obtained only with respect to the specific locations explored, and therefore may not completely define all subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature of many sites is that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions.

Furthermore, changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to perform additional investigation of the site, finalize and complete the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report, and finally to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to verify that our preliminary findings are representative of the site. 1228
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

This report is intended only for the use of Legacy/Collier Residential, LLC and its design consultants, and only as related expressly to evaluation of the feasibility of developing the subject site with the proposed development and for preliminary planning and design.

If parties other than Leighton are engaged to provide construction geotechnical services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the findings and recommendations in this report or by providing alternative recommendations.

Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent explorations as they deem necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on the subject site.
1229
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

7.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, with Supplement 1, Effective December 12, 2018.

Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., 2006, Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of FineGrained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 2006, V. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165- 1177.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 2007 Interim Revision.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2018 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2020.

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), 2021, Interactive Wellfinder Website,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG), 2000a, Seismic Hazards Zones, Ontario Quadrangle, Official Map Released November 17, 2000.
, 2000b, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Ontario 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 040. _____, 2000c, CD-ROM containing digital images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that affect the Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003 2000. , 2008, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. 1230
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

San Bernardino County, 2010, Land Use Services, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, map FH27 C – Ontario, scale 1:14,400, dated march 9, 2010. , 2013, Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, Prepared by CDM Smith, Inc. for the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, dated June 7, 2013.

Dibblee, T.W. Jr., 2002, Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map No. DF-91.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Ontario, Map Number 06071C8620H, dated August 8, 2008.

Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.

Morton D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana, 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2021, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website: http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018, Ontario Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, map scale 1:24,000.
, 2008a, Unified Hazard Tool for Deaggregations,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
, 2008b, National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm , 2021a, Interactive Fault Map, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/ , 2021b, Interactive Geologic Map, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/ Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 2009, Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program, 2008 State of the Basin Report, Final Report, Prepared for Chino Basin Watermaster, dated November, 2009.

1231

FIGURES
1232
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F01_SLM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:00:06 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
FIGURE 1
Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
1233
&<
&<
&<
&<
&< &(
!(#
!(#
!(#
!(#
/3
7'

$IX

4\I#

3HUF7HVW
,QWHUYDO

&37
7'

&37
7'

&377'
&37$
7'

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'

/3/%7'
$IX
4\I#
3HUF7HVW,QWHUYDO

Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F02_GM_2022-04-20.mxd on 4/19/2022 11:14:24 AM Author: KVM (btran)

GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
³
0 100 200
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: Option A Site Plan, Euclid and Walnut Mixed UseSheet 01, Dated: 03/10/2022by AO Architecture Design Relationships 1 " = 100 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Date: May 2022
),*85(
/%
/3
&37
/(*(1'
&<
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boringshowing total depth (T.D.) and depth to earth unitsin feet below ground surface. &(
Approximate location of percolation test wellshowing percolation test interval in feetbelow ground surface. !(# Approximate location of cone penetrometer test sounding showing total depth (T.D.) in feet below ground surface Approximate Site Boundary
Artificial Fill
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
$IX
4\I

W A L N U T S T R E E T

EUCLID AVENUE
1234
?zE
?¼E
Qyf3
Qyf
Scale:

Basemap: USGS Topo Map Service from Esri, 2021
Reference: USGS Geologic Map of the Sotuthern
California GIS Compilation by CGS, Lancaster, et al., 2012 1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F03_RGM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:02:07 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 3
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
1235
³ 0 510
Miles
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: maps.conservation.ca.gov
1 " = 5 miles
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F04_RFHSM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:03:52 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

REGIONAL FAULTS AND

HISTORIC SEISMICITY MAP
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Fault activity
Recency of Movement
Historic (<200 years)
Holocene (<11,700 years)
Late Quaternary (last 700,000 years)
Quaternary (<1.6M years)
Historical Earthquakes (≥M3.5)
! 3.5 - 3.99
! 4.0 - 4.99
! 5.0 - 5.99
! 6.0 - 6.99
FIGURE 4
1236
Scale:

Base Map: San Bernardino County Land Use Plan
General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, FH27 C Ontario
1 " = 5,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F05_SHM_2022-04-20.mxd on 4/20/2022 1:12:49 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Location
FIGURE 5
³ 0 5,000 10,000
Feet
1237
?zE
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: FEMA, DWR
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F06_FHM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:10:26 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
100-Year Floodplains
500-Year Floodplains
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 6
1238
!"`$
?zE
³ 0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: FEMA, DWR
1 " = 4,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F07_DIM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:17:09 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date:May 2022

DAM INUNDATION MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
San Antonio 1986 Revision
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 7
1239

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL

WITH PROPER

SURFACE DRAINAGE
SLOPE

OR LEVEL
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

WEEP HOLE

WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)

LEVEL OR
SLOPE
12"

FILTER MATERIAL
NATIVE
¼ TO 1½ INCH SIZE GRAVEL

WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

LEVEL OR
SLOPE

WEEP HOLE
SLOPE

OR LEVEL
12"

WITH PROPER

SURFACE DRAINAGE
4 INCH DIAMETER

PERFORATED PIPE
(SEE NOTE 3)

FILTER FABRIC
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED

IN FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Sieve Size
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
(SEE NOTE 5)
12" MINIMUM
(SEE GRADATION)

WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
(SEE NOTE 4)
12" MINIMUM
NATIVE
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
(SEE NOTE 5)
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum *Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.

Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) 4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

V:\DRAFTING\TEMPLATES\STANDARD-FIGURES\ALL-STANDARD-FIGURES.DWG (08-02-21 9:07:35AM) Plotted by: btran FIGURE 8
1240

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATION LOGS
1241
ML-SM
ML/CL
ML-SM
CL-ML
SC
SP
@Surface: 2.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 4.5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.58': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly
micaceous @ ~4'
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty CLAY, stiff, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous, few fine sand
PP=2.50 TSF )>>
@7.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, medium olive brown, moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous, slightly laminated; grades to Clayey SILT with sand, grayish brown, moist, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous, few fine sand
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, gray, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining/veins, few fine sand, trace subrounded gravel, slightly laminated
PP>4.5 TSF
@15': Silty CLAY, stiff, medium brown, moist, medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous; grades to Sandy CLAY, medium brown, moist, medium plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, iron oxidation staining
PP=4.25 TSF
@20': Clayey SAND, medium dense, mottled medium brown to orange, low plasticity, predominately fine sand, little medium sand, slightly micaceous, slightly laminated, trace fine subrounded gravel
PP>4.50 TSF
@25': SAND with Silt, medium dense, yellowish brown, slightly moist, predominately fine sand, poorly-graded, little medium sand, slightly micaceous
95 89
112
120
9 31
16 12
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
EI, RV
CN
CO
4 7
9 7
11 13
4 9
15 4
8 12
8 18
22 12
16 27
805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
1242
@30': SAND with gravel, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, few fine subrounded gravel, slightly micaceous
@35': SAND with Silt, Very dense, yellowish brown,
predominately fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, poorly graded, few fine subangular to subrounded gravel
@40': SAND, dense, medium brown, slightly moist,
predominately fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, trace to few fine subangular to subrounded gravel, slightly
micaceous
@45': Very dense, medium brown to orange brown, few fine subrounded gravel
@50': Very dense, little subrounded granitic gravel
Total Depth: 51.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
115
4 4
2 3
S-7
R-8
S-9
R-10
S-11
CO
9 12
14 11
24 50/4"
8 12
19 47
50/3"
35 39
50/4"
805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
775
770
765
760
755
750
745
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
1243
ML-SM
ML-SM
SP
CL/SM
SP-ML
ML-SM
CL-SC
SP
@Surface: 4 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, some debris (asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Clayey SAND, medium dense, olive gray, very moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, pinhole pores; grades to Silty SAND with gravel, light to medium brown, predominately fine sand, few medium sand, fine
subangular granitic gravel )>>
@7.5': SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, little iron oxidation staining @10': CLAY, stiff, olive gray, moist, lean, low plasticity, extensive iron oxidation staining, few very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, light orange brown, very fine sand, slightly micaceous
@15': SAND with silt, medium dense, light gray, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, micaceous; interbedded with Clayey SILT, medium brown, moist, low plasticity, laminated, iron oxidation staining
@20': Sandy SILT, very stiff, medium brown, moist, low
plasticity, very fine sand, micaceous; grades to Sandy CLAY, medium brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, trace subrounded gravel
PP = 3.50
@25': Sandy CLAY, very stiff, medium brown, moist, low
plasticity, very fine to fine sand, micaceous, some silt PP > 4.50 TSF
@26': SAND with silt, orange brown, dry to slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, slightly micaceous
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
101
103
112
108
3 4
16 10
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6

DS, MD,
SE
CN
CN, AL
3 8
16 6
11 11
4 8
12 10
10 11
7 11
17 10
15 24
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
1244
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
775
770
765
760
755
750
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
1245
SM
SM
CL-SC
CL
SC
@Surface: 3.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 12 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@1.3': Silty SAND, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, trace coarse sand, non-plastic, few debris (asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, medium dense, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated, slightly micaceous )>> @7.5': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive, slightly moist, fine sand, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, carbonate veins; grades to SAND, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown, slightly moist, low to medium plasticity, trace very fine sand, iron oxidation staining PP > 4.50 TSF
@15': Very stiff, slightly laminated
PP = 4.25 TSF
@20': Clayey SAND, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand, slightly laminated, iron oxidation staining
PP = 4.50 TSF
@25': Medium dense, higher sand content, pinhole pores
PP > 4.50 TSF
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
111
90 87
122
114
8 26
35 12
14 B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
CR, MD
DS
7 9
11 7
12 15
10 16
26 5
9 17
12 16
27 7
10 17
808'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
1246
SM
SM-ML
ML-SM
CL-ML
SC
@Surface: 5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 3 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.67': Silty SAND, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, trace coarse sand, trace debris
(asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, medium dense, medium brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, trace coarse sand, nonplastic, slightly micaceous; grades to Sandy SILT, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, no to low plasticity, slightly
micaceous )>>
@7.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining; grades to Sandy SILT, yellowish brown
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown to tan, moist, low plasticity, slightly laminated, trace very fine sand; grades to SAND, tan to yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous
@15': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, some very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated
@20': Very stiff, few to little very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated
@25': Clayey SAND, dense, olive brown, moist, predominately fine sand, trace to few medium to coarse sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous; grades to orange, iron oxidation stained Clayey SAND, slightly laminated
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
SE
5 7
9 9
16 16
6 11
16 5
10 21
6 9
19 10
18 28
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
1247
ML-SM
SM-ML
ML-CL
SP
SM
ML-SM
@Surface: 3 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 7 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.83': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, medium
brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, trace medium sand, slightly micaceous @ ~4'
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, very loose, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, nonplastic
@10': Clayey Sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty CLAY with sand, gray, moist, low to medium plasticity, very fine sand, micaceous, extensive iron oxidation staining
@15': Silty SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, slightly moist, prodominately fine sand, some clay, trace medium to coarse sand, trace fine subrounded gravel, slightly micaceous
@18.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, olive brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous
PP > 4.50 TSF
@23.5': Sandy CLAY, stiff to medium dense, orange mottled with brown, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous
Total Depth: 25' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 17 - 22' bgs Upon completion of percolation testing, boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt
104
119
5 12
B-1
S-1
S-2
R-3
R-4
S-5
, SA
, SA
SA
2 2
2 2
3 4
6 9
11 8
13 21
5 6
7 805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
1248
SM-ML
SM
ML/CL
SM
@Surface: 3.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 4 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.62': Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, low to no plasticity, slightly micaceous <Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, very loose, medium to dark brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, trace coarse sand to fine subrounded gravel )>>
@10': Sandy SILT, medium stiff, mottled with gray and light brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty CLAY, grayish brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, laminated @15': Silty CLAY, stiff, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, laminated, iron oxidation staining
@18.5': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, low to no plasticity, little iron oxidation staining, trace pinhole pores
Total Depth: 20' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 15 - 20' bgs Upon completion of percolation testing, boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt
91 115
25 7
B-1
S-1
S-2
R-3
R-4
, SA
, SA
4 2
2 2
2 3
4 6
9 12
16 26
804'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-2
1249

APPENDIX B

PERCOLATION TEST DATA
1250
Project Number: 13493.001 Test Hole Number: LP-1
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 23.5 Tested By: LFO/KD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 8:34 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: 9:31 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 16.9 25 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
8:34 16.93 78.8
8:59 17.61 70.7
9:04 16.99 78.1
9:29 17.61 70.7
9:31 16.94 78.7
9:41 17.43 72.8
9:43 17.00 78.0
9:53 17.42 73.0
9:55 17.00 78.0
10:05 17.44 72.7
10:06 17.00 78.0
10:16 17.44 72.7
10:18 17.00 78.0
10:28 17.45 72.6
10:30 17.00 78.0
10:40 17.44 72.7
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.32 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
4/6/2022
4/7/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
1 25 8.2 3.06 0.20
2 25 7.4 3.36 0.18
3 10 5.9 1.70 0.35
4 10 5.0 1.98 0.30
5 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
6 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
7 10 5.4 1.85 0.33
8 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 1251
Project Number: 13493.001 Test Hole Number: LP-2
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 20
Tested By: LFO/KD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 7:25 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: 8:27 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 15.05 25 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
7:25 15.05 59.4
7:50 15.06 59.3
7:55 15.20 57.6
8:20 16.55 41.4
8:27 15.08 59.0
8:37 15.75 51.0
8:39 15.05 59.4
8:49 15.78 50.6
8:56 15.08 59.0
9:06 15.75 51.0
9:08 15.08 59.0
9:18 15.50 54.0
9:21 15.08 59.0
9:31 15.78 50.6
9:34 15.08 59.0
9:44 15.78 50.6
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.69 in./hr.

Percolation Data
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
4/6/2022
4/7/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:
1 25 0.1 208.33 0.00
2 25 16.2 1.54 0.59
3 10 8.0 1.24 0.66
5 10 8.0 1.24 0.66
4 10 8.8 1.14 0.72
6 10 5.0 1.98 0.40
7 10 8.4 1.19 0.69
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 8 10 8.4 1.19 0.69
1252

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1253
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 185.47
Weight of Ring (g): 45.70
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9695
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 169.15
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 153.14
Weight of Container (g): 65.19
Initial Moisture Content (%) 18.2
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.3
Initial Saturation (%): 68
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0773
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 254.24
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 229.01
Weight of Container (g): 59.14
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.32
Final Dry Density (pcf): 106.5
Final Saturation (%): 94
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1103
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0777 0.9996 0.00 0.04 0.720 0.04

0.25 0.0812 0.9962 0.03 0.39 0.714 0.36

0.50 0.0834 0.9940 0.08 0.61 0.711 0.53

1.00 0.0869 0.9905 0.15 0.95 0.707 0.80

2.00 0.0905 0.9868 0.25 1.32 0.702 1.07

2.00 0.0917 0.9856 0.25 1.44 0.700 1.19

4.00 0.0982 0.9791 0.36 2.09 0.691 1.73

8.00 0.1092 0.9681 0.49 3.19 0.674 2.70

16.00 0.1274 0.9500 0.64 5.01 0.645 4.37

4.00 0.1222 0.9552 0.47 4.49 0.651 4.02

1.00 0.1172 0.9602 0.34 3.99 0.658 3.65

0.25 0.1103 0.9670 0.25 3.30 0.668 3.05

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive silty clay (CL-ML)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-1
R-1
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.640

0.650

0.660

0.670

0.680

0.690

0.700

0.710

0.720

0.730

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-1, R-1 @ 5
1254
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-1 R-1 18.2 20.3 106.5
Olive silty clay (CL-ML)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings

98.3 0.668 68 94
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.720
Void Ratio
5 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1255
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 199.47
Weight of Ring (g): 44.89
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9819
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 189.19
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 178.43
Weight of Container (g): 59.52
Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.0
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 117.9
Initial Saturation (%): 56
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0958
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 269.21
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 253.05
Weight of Container (g): 66.12
Final Moisture Content (%) 11.38
Final Dry Density (pcf): 120.3
Final Saturation (%): 76
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1178
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0960 0.9998 0.00 0.02 0.435 0.02

0.25 0.0974 0.9984 0.06 0.16 0.434 0.10

0.50 0.0988 0.9970 0.14 0.30 0.433 0.16

1.00 0.1015 0.9943 0.24 0.57 0.430 0.33

2.00 0.1043 0.9916 0.36 0.84 0.428 0.48

2.00 0.1051 0.9907 0.36 0.93 0.427 0.57

4.00 0.1102 0.9856 0.50 1.44 0.422 0.94

8.00 0.1170 0.9788 0.66 2.12 0.414 1.46

16.00 0.1275 0.9684 0.86 3.17 0.402 2.31

4.00 0.1240 0.9718 0.67 2.82 0.404 2.15

1.00 0.1210 0.9748 0.51 2.52 0.406 2.01

0.25 0.1178 0.9780 0.39 2.20 0.409 1.81

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray silty, clayey sand (SC-SM)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
R-1
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.400

0.405

0.410

0.415

0.420

0.425

0.430

0.435

0.440

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-2, R-1 @ 5
1256
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-2 R-1 9.0 11.4 120.3
Olive gray silty, clayey sand (SC-SM)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings
117.9 0.409 56 76
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.435
Void Ratio
5 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1257
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 193.07
Weight of Ring (g): 45.55
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9656
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 263.34
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 214.46
Weight of Container (g): 55.13
Initial Moisture Content (%) 30.7
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 93.9
Initial Saturation (%): 100
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0902
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 253.11
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 222.45
Weight of Container (g): 61.21
Final Moisture Content (%) 26.50
Final Dry Density (pcf): 99.6
Final Saturation (%): 99
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1293
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.79
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0911 0.9991 0.00 0.09 0.854 0.09

0.25 0.0978 0.9924 0.11 0.76 0.843 0.65

0.50 0.1021 0.9882 0.25 1.19 0.838 0.94

1.00 0.1082 0.9820 0.43 1.80 0.830 1.37

2.00 0.1140 0.9762 0.58 2.38 0.822 1.80

2.00 0.1130 0.9773 0.58 2.28 0.824 1.70

4.00 0.1196 0.9706 0.72 2.94 0.814 2.22

8.00 0.1355 0.9547 0.88 4.53 0.788 3.65

16.00 0.1602 0.9301 1.07 7.00 0.745 5.93

4.00 0.1523 0.9379 0.89 6.21 0.757 5.32

1.00 0.1409 0.9493 0.72 5.07 0.775 4.35

0.25 0.1293 0.9609 0.47 3.91 0.791 3.44

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray lean clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.800

0.820

0.840

0.860

0.880

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-2, R-3 @ 10
1258
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-2 R-3 30.7 26.5 99.6
Olive gray lean clay (CL)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings

93.9 0.791 100 99
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.855
Void Ratio
10 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1259
Project Name: Tested By : G. Berdy Date: 04/13/22
Project No. : 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No. LB-3
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0-5
168.20
168.07

52.00 0.11
100.19
8 3
860
7:15/8:00
45 24.5192

24.5129

0.0063
259.25
260
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.4
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 40
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 40

7.92 20.3
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.

Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Olive brown
(SM)
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Temperature °C
pH Value
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:

Time In / Time Out
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
1260
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario C Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. :

Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

23.14 1500 Wt. of Container (g)

0.11 168.20
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
1 2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
30 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
1500

1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)

46.18 Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
4 40
50 60
3 38.50 1350 130.40
1350
1335 34.4 260 40 7.92 20.3

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
1350
1350
168.07

52.00 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
04/19/22
04/25/22
0-5
13493.001
LB-3
G. Berdy
B-1
Container No.

Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
1450 1450 Box Constant
Olive brown (SM)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)

30.82 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
1261
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 0-5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
197.98 198.21 198.62

45.38 45.43 45.60
Before Shearing
169.35 169.35 169.35
155.92 155.92 155.92

56.15 56.15 56.15

0.2545 0.2729 0.0000

0.2651 0.2858 -0.0224
After Shearing
211.09 212.06 191.55
190.82 191.76 171.67

58.12 58.19 38.35

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

B-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1262
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)

71.7 0.9894

15.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

72.3 0.9776

14.9 1.000

0.893

0.729

0.0017

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.405

1.405

0.0017

4.000

2.719

2.719

0.0017

71.9 0.9871

15.2 Soil Identification: 13.46
112.0

13.46 111.9 112.2

1.000

2.415

13.46 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-2
B-1
0-5

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1263
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: 90% Remold Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 236 32 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 72 34 Final Moisture Content (%)

1.405

1.405
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-2
B-1
0-5

71.9 13.46
112.0

0.0017

4.000

2.719

2.719

0.0017

72.3 2.000

0.9776

13.46 14.9

1.000

2.415

0.9871

15.2 112.2

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.893

0.729

0.0017

13.46 111.9

2.415
Soil Identification:
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001

71.7 0.9894

1.000

15.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1264
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
177.41 181.99 182.19

43.72 45.58 45.95
Before Shearing
182.62 182.62 182.62
178.05 178.05 178.05

58.18 58.18 58.18

0.0000 0.2562 0.2637
-0.0126 0.2707 0.2918
After Shearing
208.16 204.29 212.34
188.26 184.44 192.59

66.34 58.11 67.16

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-3
Olive silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-2
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1265
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
109.1

1.000

2.415

3.81 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-2

7.5 19.0

0.9855

15.7 Soil Identification: 3.81
109.3

3.81 107.1

1.364

0.0033

4.000

2.858

2.704

0.0033

1.000

0.773

0.688

0.0033

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.544

17.9 0.9874

16.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

18.9 0.9719

15.7 04-22
Project No.: 13493.001
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive silty sand (SM)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1266
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 116 35 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 18 34 Final Moisture Content (%)
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001

17.9 0.9874

1.000

16.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.773

0.688

0.0033

3.81 107.1

2.415
Soil Identification:

0.9719

3.81 15.7

1.000

2.415

0.9855

15.7 109.1

1.000

2.415

19.0 3.81
109.3

0.0033

4.000

2.858

2.704

0.0033

18.9 2.000

1.544

1.364
Olive silty sand (SM)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-2

7.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1267
Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 04/13/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22
Depth (ft.):

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container No. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h 1100
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 18

1.0 0.6030
04/14/22 9:53 1.0 1351 0.6030
04/14/22 5:42 1.0
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
04/13/22 11:59 1.0 37 0.6000
10 04/13/22 11:12 1.0 0 0.5855
04/13/22 11:22 0.5855
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 49.0 96.3
Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
Total Porosity 0.331 0.343
Pore Volume (cc) 68.6 72.2
Dry Density (pcf) 112.7 110.8
Void Ratio 0.496 0.522
Moisture Content (%) 9.00 18.61
Wet Density (pcf) 122.9 131.4
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 751.90 575.77
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 202.10
Container No. OO
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 819.60 645.30
Wt. of Mold (g) 202.10 0.00
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0175
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 609.40 443.20
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
100.00
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
1000.00

0.00 1000.00

0.00 0-5
Sample No.: B-1
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Project No.: 13493.001
Boring No.:

EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name:

LB-1
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
1268
LB-1 7.5 9.3 94.6
LB-1 10.0 31.0 88.6
LB-1 15.0 15.7 111.5
LB-1 20.0 12.2 120.1
LB-1 30.0 3.6
LB-1 40.0 4.4
LB-1 45.0 2.0 114.9
LB-1 50.0 3.2
LB-2 7.5 3.0 101.4
LB-2 15.0 4.0 102.8
LB-2 20.0 15.7 111.9
LB-2 25.0 10.4 108.4
LB-3 5.0 7.7 110.6
LB-3 10.0 26.3 90.1
LB-3 15.0 35.1 87.0
LB-3 20.0 12.5 121.7
LB-3 25.0 13.9 113.8
LP-1 15.0 5.0 104.3
LP-1 18.5 12.4 119.3
LP-2 15.0 25.4 91.0
LP-2 18.5 7.3 115.0
Classification
Water
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Maximum
Size
(mm)
%<#200
Sieve
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio Depth
Summary of Laboratory Results
Sheet 1 of 1
Borehole
Figure No. 1
Project Name:

Project Number:

Date:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
5/4/2022 11:49:57 AM
US_LAB_SUMMARY 13493.001 BORING LOGS.GPJ ROCKLOG2012.GDT 5/4/22 1269
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 04/12/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/13/22
LB-2 Depth (ft.): 0-5
Preparation Method: X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03330 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 123456
3861 3920 3880
1826 1826 1826
2035 2094 2054
462.6 478.9 498.0
423.8 429.5 437.3

37.9 36.3 39.6

10.05 12.56 15.26
134.7 138.6 136.0
122.4 123.2 118.0
123.5 11.5

PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
13493.001
TEST NO.

Soil Identification:

Sample No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Boring No.:

Weight of Container (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
Project Name:

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
SP. GR. = 2.80
XX
MX LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1270
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 04/13/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22
LB-3 Depth (ft.): 0-5
Preparation Method: X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03330 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 123456
3839 3913 3850
1826 1826 1826
2013 2087 2024
499.8 520.0 518.3
469.3 477.3 466.0

41.0 39.1 37.8

7.12 9.74 12.21
133.3 138.2 134.0
124.4 125.9 119.4
126.4 9.0

PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
13493.001
TEST NO.

Soil Identification:

Sample No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Boring No.:

Weight of Container (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
Project Name:

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.55
SP. GR. = 2.60
SP. GR. = 2.65
XX
MX LB-3, B-1 @ 0-5
1271
Project Name: Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 04/22/22
Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 04/25/22
Boring No.: Checked By: A. Santos
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 10.0
Soil Identification:
121234
26 21 16

8.64 8.87 20.09 21.49 20.68

7.38 7.61 14.48 15.38 14.70

1.06 1.07 1.11 1.03 1.00

19.94 19.27 41.96 42.58 43.65
42 20
22 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 16.06
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)

PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Olive gray lean clay (CL)

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
13493.001
LB-2
R-3
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Onratio CA
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)

0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
40 41
42 43
44 45
10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1272
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Project No.: 13493.001
Summary of Pocket Penetrometer Test Results
Tested by: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Prepared by: G. Bathala Date: 04/22/22
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Readings Remarks
LB-1 R-2 7.5 2.50
R-3 10 >4.50
R-4 15 4.25
R-5 20 >4.50
R-10 45 3.50
LB-2 R-2 7.5 1.75
R-4 15 3.75
R-5 20 3.50
R-6 25 >4.50
LB-3 R-1 5 >4.50
R-3 10 >4.50
R-4 15 4.25
R-5 20 4.50
R-6 25 >4.50
LP-1 R-3 15 2.75
R-4 18.5 >4.50
LP-2 R-3 15 >4.50
R-4 18.5 >4.50
1273
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 13493.001
BORING NUMBER: LB-1 DEPTH (FT.): 0-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML) DATE COMPLETED: 4/13/2022 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 12.7 13.7 14.6
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.45 2.50 2.53
DRY DENSITY, pcf 120.2 118.7 116.2
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 325 250 150
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 564 302 139
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 51 35 25
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 28 36 46
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.60 5.13 5.45
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 72 63 53
R-VALUE CORRECTED 72 63 53
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.45 0.59 0.75
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 1.70 1.17 0.83

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 50
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 63
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 50

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use Ontario CA

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
1274
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA Tested By: A Santos Date: 04/25/22 Project No. : Input By: J. Ward Date: 04/25/22
11:20 11:30 11:33 11:53 13.5 1.2 9
11:24 11:34 11:37 11:57 13.4 1.1 911:28 11:38 11:41 12:01 13.5 1.1 913:40 13:50 13:53 14:13 12.6 1.4 12 13:44 13:54 13:57 14:17 12.6 1.4 12
13:48 13:58 14:01 14:21 12.7 1.3 11
T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting Time Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100 T2 = ( T1 + 10 min) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min) Take Clay Reading (R1) Record SE as Next Higher Integer (131 cycles in 45 sec) and Sand Reading (R2) Olive brown silty sand
(SM) LB-5
R2

SAND EQUIVALENT TEST
DOT CA Test 217
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.)
12 13493.001
Average
SE
Olive brown sandy silt
s(ML) B-1
B-1
Soil Type R1 SE
0-5
LB-2 0-5 9
T1 T2 T3 T4
SE LB-2 & LB-5, B-1 @ 0-5
1275
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 15.0
Sample No.: R-3
Soil Identification: Grayish brown silty sand (SM)
2 0.0
712.3 0.0
110.0 1.0
602.3 0.0
2 582.3
110.0
472.3
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 77 %
FINES: 23 %
GROUP SYMBOL: SM
Remarks:

After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)

17.0 22.9
343.0 43.1
100.0

99.8 97.2

99.4 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
464.2

72.3 54.5
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 1.2
166.8
Cu = D60/D10 =

3.6 91.0
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
1276
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

15.0 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.:

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Grayish brown silty sand (SM)
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:Depth (feet): Soil Type :
0 : 77 : 23
R-3
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, R-3 @ 15
1277
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 18.5
Sample No.: R-4
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
9545 0.0
774.5 0.0
106.2 1.0
668.3 0.0
9545
426.4
106.2
320.2
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 47 %
FINES: 53 %
GROUP SYMBOL: s(ML)
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

93.8 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 2.9
106.5
Cu = D60/D10 =

8.0 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
315.8

84.1 41.7

15.3 52.7
206.4 69.1
100.0

99.6 97.7

98.8 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1278
0 : 47 : 53
R-4
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
s(ML)
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

18.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, R-4 @ 18.5
1279
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 23.5
Sample No.: S-5
Soil Identification: Brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
969 0.0
538.7 0.0
109.4 1.0
429.3 0.0
969
344.3
109.4
234.9
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 51 %
FINES: 49 %
GROUP SYMBOL: s(CL)
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

91.6 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 1.1

83.7 Cu = D60/D10 =

4.2 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
220.7

80.5 36.0

12.8 48.6
148.7 65.4
100.0

99.7 97.0

99.0 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1280
0 : 51 : 49
S-5
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
s(CL)
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

23.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, S-5 @ 23.5
1281
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-2 Depth (feet): 15.0
Sample No.: R-3
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
V-1 0.0
635.6 0.0
108.7 1.0
526.9 0.0
V-1
139.2
108.7

30.5 (in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 5%
FINES: 95 %
GROUP SYMBOL: CL-ML
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

99.9 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

4.4 Cu = D60/D10 =
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.

28.4 99.2

0.4 0.0

94.6 12.6 97.6
100.0
After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1282
0 : 5 : 95
R-3
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
CL-ML
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-2 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

15.0 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-2, R-3 @ 15
1283
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-2 Depth (feet): 18.5
Sample No.: R-4
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
R-2 0.0
799.6 0.0
107.7 1.0
691.9 0.0
R-2
576.0
107.7
468.3
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 67 %
FINES: 33 %
GROUP SYMBOL: SM
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

93.7 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 0.9
150.5
Cu = D60/D10 =

3.8 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
464.3

78.2 43.5

13.1 32.9
340.6 50.8
100.0

99.9 98.1

99.5 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1284
0 : 67 : 33
R-4
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-2 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

18.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-2, R-4 @ 18.5
1285
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: LB-1 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-6 Depth (ft.) 25.0
Sample Description: Yellowish brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 104.9 Final Dry Density (pcf): 107.0 Initial Moisture (%): 3.61 Final Moisture (%) : 18.2
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.6072 Initial Dial Reading: 0.3076 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 16.0

0.100 0.9999 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

3.000 0.9814 0.52 -1.86 -1.34
H2O 0.9751 0.52 -2.49 -1.97
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.64 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.6070

0.5856
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT

POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
13493.001

0.5755

0.3075

0.2890

0.2827
Corrected
Deformation
(%)

0.5700

0.5750

0.5800

0.5850

0.5900

0.5950

0.6000

0.6050

0.6100

0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement LB-1, R-6 @ 25 1286
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: LB-1 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-8 Depth (ft.) 35.0
Sample Description: Yellowish brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 110.6 Final Dry Density (pcf): 112.3 Initial Moisture (%): 3.30 Final Moisture (%) : 15.9
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.5246 Initial Dial Reading: 0.3373 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 17.0

0.100 0.9999 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

4.000 0.9847 0.18 -1.53 -1.35
H2O 0.9825 0.18 -1.75 -1.57
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.22

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT

POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
13493.001

0.5007

0.3372

0.3220

0.3198
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.5244

0.5040
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)

0.4950

0.5000

0.5050

0.5100

0.5150

0.5200

0.5250

0.5300

0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement LB-1, R-8 @ 35 1287
November 29, 2022
Project No. 13493.002
Legacy/Collier Residential, LLC
5154 California Avenue
Irvine, California 92617
Attention: Mr. David Pinto
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Exploration Report
Infiltration Testing
Proposed “Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use” Development
112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2022, Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed “Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use” Development, 112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California, Project No. 13493.001, dated May 13, 2022.

Introduction
Per your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed supplemental infiltration testing for the subject mixed use development. Additional field infiltration testing was performed in coordination with Mr. Steve Ellis of Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (project civil engineer) to target the locations and depths planned for infiltration. While official infiltration plans were not available, we understand that stormwater infiltration is intended to be achieved utilizing a drywell system to be located in the southern portion of the site extending to approximate depths of no greater than 45 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Purpose and Scope
Purpose of our exploration was to perform field infiltration tests at the proposed device locations and invert depths. The test locations and depths were selected by the project civil engineer. Our Scope of Work included the following:
• Pre-Field Exploration Activities – Site reconnaissance performed by a professional geologist to mark the proposed infiltration test locations. Underground Service Alert 1288
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 2 (USA) was notified to locate and mark existing underground utilities prior to our subsurface exploration.
• Field Exploration – Our supplemental subsurface exploration was performed on August 24, 2022 and included drilling, logging, and sampling of two (2) hollow-stem auger borings (designated LP-3 and LP-4) to depths ranging from approximately 40 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of these explorations are shown on Figure 1, Geotechnical Map. The corresponding boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

During drilling of the hollow-stem auger borings drive samples were obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Sample collection was performed by conducting the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) within the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. Samples were collected within the proposed test infiltration zone at 5-foot intervals. During sampling, the sampler was driven below the bottom of the borehole by a 140-pound weight (hammer) free-falling 30 inches. The drilling rig was equipped with an automatic hammer to provide greater consistency in the drop height and striking frequency. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of the 18-inch drive interval is termed the “blowcount” or SPT N-value.

N-values provide a measure of relative density in granular (non-cohesive) soils and comparative consistency in cohesive soils. Number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs included in Appendix A.

The borings were logged in the field by a geologist from our firm. Each soil sample collected was reviewed and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory for testing. After completion of drilling, the borings were converted to percolation wells for subsequent testing. • Percolation Testing – Borings LP-3 and LP-4 (Figure 1) were converted to temporary percolation test wells upon completion of drilling and sampling. The test wells consisted of 2-inch diameter slotted (0.020-inch) PVC well casing screened within the proposed test zone. In-situ percolation testing was performed in general accordance with the County of San Bernardino guidelines Upon completion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed from each boring and the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched at the surface to match existing site conditions. • Laboratory Testing – Selected soil samples obtained from our hollow-stem-auger borings were tested at our in-house geotechnical laboratory. This laboratory testing 1289
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 3 program was designed to evaluate the fines content of the soils within the tested zone (i.e. soil particles finer than the No. 200 sieve). . Results are included in Appendix C. • Report Preparation – This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed infiltration devices.

Infiltration Testing
Percolation testing was performed in temporary wells installed within borings LP-3 and LP4 located in the southern region of the site with test zone at depths of 25 to 45 feet bgs and 25 to 40 feet bgs, respectively. The percolation tests were conducted in general accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B. The test locations and tested depth intervals are shown on Plate 1.

A boring percolation test is useful for field measurements of the infiltration rate of soils, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the infiltration device is deeper than current existing grades, especially in areas where it is difficult to dig test pits, or where the depths of these test pits would be considerably deep. At the subject site, testing consisted of advancing the borings to the anticipated depth for the invert of the proposed infiltration devices.

The Percolation Test Procedure (falling-head test method) as outlined in the County Guidelines was implemented at each percolation test well location. The infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the rate of discharge by the infiltration surface area, or flow area.

The volume of discharge was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and within the annulus, and incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the porosity of the annulus material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the test well.

Detailed results of the field testing data and measured infiltration rate for the test well are presented in Appendix B. The test results are summarized in the table below:

Table 1 – Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate
Test Well
Designation
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone (feet bgs)
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
LB-3 25 to 45 0.14
LP-4 25 to 40 0.47
1290
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 4 Based on the results of our field percolation testing that was performed at the site, the measured (unfactored) infiltration rates for the two (2) tests performed were 0.14 inches per hour (LP-3) and 0.47 inches per hour (LP-2), respectively. According to the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013), the measured infiltration rate at the LP-4 well location technically exceeds the minimum feasibility criteria of 0.3 inch per hour. However, implementation of a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 as required for the design infiltration rate indicates the depth and location tested for both wells are considered infeasible for infiltration.

Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us directly at the phone extensions and/or e-mail addresses listed below.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Eric M. Holliday, PG, 9219
Senior Project Geologist
Ext 4252, [email protected]
John E. Haertle, PE, GE 2352
Principal Engineer
Ext: 4268, [email protected]
EMH/JEH/lr
Attachments: Figure 1 – Geotechnical Map
Appendix A - Exploration Logs
Appendix B - Percolation Test Data
Appendix C - Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Distribution: (1) Addressee
1291
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&(
!(#
!(#
!(#
!(#
&(
&(
LB-2
T.D.26.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-1
T.D.51.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-5
T.D.26.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-3
T.D.26.5'
LP-1/LB-4
T.D.25'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval17-22'
LP-3
T.D.45'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval25-45'
LP-4
T.D.40'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval25-40'
CPT-2
T.D.50.2'
CPT-1
T.D.50.4'
CPT-4
T.D.50.1'
CPT-3/3A
T.D.35.8/50.7'
LP-2
T.D.20'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval15-20'
MapSavedasJ:\Drafting\13493\002\Maps\13493-002_F01_GM_2022-11-18.mxdon11/18/202210:57:40AMAuthor:KVM(btran)

GEOTECHNICALMAP
ProposedEuclidandWalnutMixed-UseDevelopment
2502and2530S.EuclidAvenue
Ontario,California
³
0100200
Feet
Scale:

BaseMap:OptionASitePlan,EuclidandWalnutMixedUse
Sheet01,Dated:03/10/2022
byAOArchitectureDesignRelationships
1"=100'
Project:13493.002
Eng/Geol:JEH/EMH
Date:November2022
FIGURE1
LB-5
LP-2
CPT-4
LEGEND
&<
Approximatelocationofprevioushollow-stemaugerboring
showingtotaldepth(T.D.)anddepthtoearthunits
infeetbelowgroundsurface.(Leighton,2022)
&(
Approximatelocationofpreviouspercolationtestwell
showingpercolationtestintervalinfeet
belowgroundsurface.(Leighton,2022)
!(#
Approximatelocationofpreviousconepenetrometertestsounding showingtotaldepth(T.D.)infeetbelowgroundsurface
(Leighton,2022)
ApproximateSiteBoundary
ArtificialFill
QuaternaryYoungAlluvialFanDeposits
Afu
Qyf
LP-4
Approximatelocationofcurrentpercolationtestwell
showingpercolationtestintervalinfeet
&(
belowgroundsurface.
1292

APPENDIX A
Exploration Logs
1293
SM
SM-ML
SM
@Surface: 3 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 6 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Silty SAND, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand and fine subrounded gravel
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (Qyf)
@20': Clayey Sandy SILT to Clayey Silty SAND, medium
dense/very stiff, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous, friable, pockets of higher clay content
@25': Silty SAND, medium dense, mottled reddish brown and grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, nonplastic, slightly micaceous, friable, grading slightly finer toward bottom
S-1
S-2 -200
3 7
11 4
8 9
'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
1294
ML
SM
ML
SM-ML
@30': Sandy SILT, very stiff, mottled orange brown and grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace coarse sand, nonplastic, friable, slightly micaceous
@35': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive brown, moist, very fine sand, micaceous, friable
@38.5': Sandy SILT, medium dense, brown, moist, very fine sand, nonplastic, micaceous, friable, trace medium sand @43.5': Interbedded Clayey Sandy SILT and Silty SAND;
Clayey Sandy SILT, hard, brown, slightly moist, fine to medium sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous
Silty SAND, very dense, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, micaceous, nonplastic, friable
Total Depth: 45' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 25-45' Upon completion of percolation testing, boring backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete.

S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
-200
9 11
11 7
11 14
10 11
11 7
14 37
'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
1295
SM
CL/SM
SM-SC
@Surface: 4 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Silty SAND, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand and fine subrounded gravel
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (Qyf)
@20': Silty CLAY, stiff, gray-brown, slightly moist, medium plasticity, few very fine sand; grading to Silty SAND, loose, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, some silt, nonplastic, trace fine subangular gravel
@25': Silty SAND, medium dense, grayish brown to yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, some silt; grading to Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND, medium dense/stiff, reddish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous
S-1
S-2
4 -200
5 5
5 7
8 '

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-4
1296
SM
SP
SM
@30': Silty SAND, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, nonplastic, friable @35': Grading to Silty Gravelly SAND, very dense, whitish tan, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, some fine subangular to subrounded gravel (granitic)
@38.5': Silty SAND, dense, brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, some silt, nonplastic, slightly micaceous, friable Total Depth: 40' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 25-40' Upon completion of percolation testing, boring backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete.

S-3
S-4
S-5
-200
8 9
12 8
38 50/5"
15 21
25 '

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-4
1297

APPENDIX B
Percolation Test Data
1298
Project Number: 13493.002 Test Hole Number: LP-3
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 45
Tested By: BTM Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 11:25 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 20 Start Time for Standard: 12:21 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 25.05 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 1
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
11:25 25.05 239.4
11:50 26.51 221.9
11:54 25.00 240.0
12:19 26.28 224.6
12:21 25.00 240.0
12:31 25.53 233.6
12:33 25.00 240.0
12:43 25.45 234.6
12:44 25.00 240.0
12:54 25.38 235.4
12:58 25.00 240.0
13:08 25.35 235.8
13:17 25.00 240.0
13:27 25.26 236.9
13:29 25.00 240.0
13:39 25.24 237.1
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.14 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
8/24/2022
8/24/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
1 25 17.5 1.43 0.36
2 25 15.4 1.63 0.31
3 10 6.4 1.57 0.32
4 10 5.4 1.85 0.27
5 10 4.6 2.19 0.23
6 10 4.2 2.38 0.21
7 10 3.1 3.21 0.16
8 10 2.9 3.47 0.14
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 1299
Project Number: 13493.002 Test Hole Number: LP-4
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 40
Tested By: BTM Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 10:21 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 15 Start Time for Standard: 11:20 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 25.00 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 1
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
10:21 25.00 180.0
10:46 28.22 141.4
10:51 25.02 179.8
11:16 27.73 147.2
11:20 25.00 180.0
11:30 26.05 167.4
11:32 25.00 180.0
11:42 25.90 169.2
11:46 25.00 180.0
11:56 25.85 169.8
12:00 25.00 180.0
12:10 25.71 171.5
12:13 25.00 180.0
12:23 25.70 171.6
12:27 25.00 180.0
12:37 25.58 173.0
12:38 25.02 179.8
12:48 25.59 172.9
12:50 25.00 180.0
13:00 25.58 173.0
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.47 in./hr.

Percolation Data
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
8/24/2022
8/24/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:
1 25 38.6 0.65 1.14
3 10 12.6 0.79 0.86
2 25 32.5 0.77 0.94
5 10 10.2 0.98 0.69
4 10 10.8 0.93 0.73
7 10 8.4 1.19 0.57
6 10 8.5 1.17 0.58
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 10 10 7.0 1.44 0.47
8 10 7.0 1.44 0.47
9 10 6.8 1.46 0.46
1300

APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
1301
LP-3 LP-3 LP-4 LP-4
S-2 S-4 S-1 S-4

25.0 35.0 20.0 35.0

SPT SPT SPT SPT

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 616.90 794.40 588.90 847.80108.60 108.50 107.30 108.00508.30 685.90 481.60 739.80 V-1 927 936 957
AAAA
411.10 609.70 340.00 732.50108.60 108.50 107.30 108.00302.50 501.20 232.70 624.50

40.5 26.9 51.7 15.6

59.5 73.1 48.3 84.4
Project Name: Legacy - OntarioProject No.: 13493.002Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 09/12/22 Moisture Content (%)Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)Container No.:Sample Type
Yellowish
brown silty
sand (SM)
Weight of Container (g)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
Moisture Correction
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g)
After Wash
Dry Weight of Sample (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Sample Dry Weight Determination
Light olive
brown silty
sand (SM)
Light olive
brown sandy
silt s(ML)
Light olive
brown silty
sand with
gravel (SM)g
Boring No.Sample No.Soil IdentificationDepth (ft.)

PERCENT PASSING
No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
Weight of Sample + Container (g)Method (A or B)Weight of Container (g) % Retained No. 200 Sieve
Passing #200 LP-3 and LP-4
1302

DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE AND

FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATION
1303

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-31 May 19, 2011
VII.4.1. Site Suitability Considerations
Suitability assessment related considerations include (Table VII.3):
 Soil assessment methods – the site assessment extent (e.g., number of borings, test pits, etc.) and the measurement method used to estimate the short-term infiltration rate.  Predominant soil texture/percent fines – soil texture and the percent of fines can greatly influence the potential for clogging.
 Site soil variability – site with spatially heterogeneous soils (vertically or horizontally) as determined from site investigations are more difficult to estimate average properties for resulting in a higher level of uncertainty associated with initial estimates.  Depth to seasonal high groundwater/impervious layer – groundwater mounding may become an issue during excessively wet conditions where shallow aquifers or shallow clay lenses are present.

Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors
Consideration High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern
Assessment methods
(see explanation below)
Use of soil survey
maps or simple
texture analysis to
estimate short-term
infiltration rates
Direct measurement
of ≥ 20 percent of
infiltration area with
localized infiltration
measurement
methods (e.g.,
infiltrometer)
Direct measurement of ≥
50 percent of infiltration
area with localized
infiltration measurement
methods
or
Use of extensive test pit
infiltration measurement
methods
Texture Class
Silty and clayey
soils with significant
fines
Loamy soils Granular to slightly loamy
soils
Site soil variability
Highly variable soils
indicated from site
assessment or
limited soil borings
collected during site
assessment
Soil borings/test pits
indicate moderately
homogeneous soils
Multiple soil borings/test
pits indicate relatively
homogeneous soils
Depth to groundwater/
impervious layer
<5 ft below facility
bottom
5-10 ft below facility
bottom
>10 below facility bottom
Localized infiltration testing refers to methods such as the double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385-88) which measure infiltration rates over an area less than 10 sq-ft, may include lateral 1304

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-33 May 19, 2011
Table VII.4: Design Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors Consideration High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern
Tributary area size Greater than 10 acres. Greater than 2 acres but less than 10 acres. 2 acres or less.

Level of
pretreatment/
expected influent
sediment loads
Pretreatment from gross
solids removal devices
only, such as
hydrodynamic
separators, racks and
screens AND tributary
area includes
landscaped areas, steep
slopes, high traffic areas,
or any other areas
expected to produce
high sediment, trash, or
debris loads.

Good pretreatment with
BMPs that mitigate coarse
sediments such as
vegetated swales AND
influent sediment loads
from the tributary area are
expected to be relatively
low (e.g., low traffic, mild
slopes, disconnected
impervious areas, etc.).

Excellent pretreatment
with BMPs that mitigate
fine sediments such as
bioretention or media
filtration OR
sedimentation or facility
only treats runoff from
relatively clean surfaces,
such as rooftops.

Redundancy of
treatment
No redundancy in BMP
treatment train.

Medium redundancy, other
BMPs available in
treatment train to maintain
at least 50% of function of
facility in event of failure.

High redundancy,
multiple components
capable of operating
independently and in
parallel, maintaining at
least 90% of facility
functionality in event of
failure.

Compaction during
construction
Construction of facility
on a compacted site or
elevated probability of
unintended/ indirect
compaction.

Medium probability of
unintended/ indirect
compaction.

Heavy equipment
actively prohibited from
infiltration areas during
construction and low
probability of
unintended/ indirect
compaction.
1305

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-34 May 19, 2011
VII.4.3. Determining Factor of Safety
A factor of safety shall be used. To assist in selecting the appropriate design infiltration rate, the measured short term infiltration rate should be adjusted using a weighted average of several safety factors using the worksheet shown in Worksheet H below. The design infiltration rate would be determined as follows:

1. For each consideration shown in Table VII.3 and Table VII.4 above, determine whether the consideration is a high, medium, or low concern.

2. For all high concerns, assign a factor value of 3, for medium concerns, assign a factor value of 2, and for low concerns assign a factor value of 1.

3. Multiply each of the factors by the corresponding weight to get a product.

4. Sum the products within each factor category to obtain a safety factor for each.

5. Multiply the two safety factors together to get the final combined safety factor. If the combined safety factor is less than 2, then 2 shall be used as the safety factor.

6. Divide the measured short term infiltration rate by the combined safety factor to obtain the adjusted design infiltration rate for use in sizing the infiltration facility.

The design infiltration rate shall be used to size BMPs and to evaluate their expected long term performance. This rate shall not be less than 2, but may be higher at the discretion of the design engineer.
1306

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-35 May 19, 2011
Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate and Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
Assessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p
B Design
Tributary area size 0.25
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.25
Redundancy 0.25
Compaction during construction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = p
Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SA x SB
Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM
(corrected for test-specific bias)
Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT × KM
Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:

Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0.
1307
June 23, 2022
Benjamin Mount
Legacy/Colliers Residential, LLC
5141 California Avenue, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92617
Email: [email protected]
LLG Reference: 2.22.4563.1
Subject: Trip Generation Assessment for the
Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartment Project
Ontario, California
Dear Mr. Mount:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment associated for the Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartment Project (hereinafter referred to as “Project”) in the City of Ontario, California.

This letter summarizes the traffic generation forecast potential for the proposed demolition of an existing commercial center consisting of an 11,450 SF strip retail center, 4,100 SF fast-food restaurant with drive-through (Carl’s Jr.), and an 89,500 SF K-Mart/Sears appliance repair shop and the construction of 376 apartment units with 10,898 SF of ground floor retail space.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is a 9.4±-acre parcel of land that is located north of Walnut Street and west of Euclid Avenue in the City of Ontario, California. The subject property is currently developed with a 11,450 SF strip retail center, 4,100 SF fast-food restaurant with drive-through (Carl’s Jr.), and a vacant 89,500 SF K-Mart/Sears appliance repair shop. Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and the surrounding street system.

The Project is proposing to demolish the existing commercial center and construct a total of 376 apartment units with 10,898 SF of ground floor retail. The Project is expected to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would leave the existing Carl’s Jr. site untouched and includes of the development of 4,500 SF ground floor retail space and 346 apartment units consisting of 18 studio units, 190 one-bedroom units, and 138 two-bedroom units. Phase 2 would consist of replacing the existing Carl’s Jr. with additional 30 apartment units and 6,398 SF of ground floor retail space.

Addendum Appendix D
1308
Mr. Benjamin Mount
June 23, 2022

N:\4500\2224563 - Euclid Residential, Ontario\Report\4563 Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartments Trip Generation Letter 06-23-22.doc The proposed Project will provide a total of 625 parking spaces for the residential component and 44 parking spaces for the retail component. Out of the total parking provided, Phase 1 will provide 587 residential spaces and 18 retail spaces, and Phase 2 will provide 38 residential spaces and 26 retail spaces.

Vehicular access is proposed via two right-turn only driveways located along Euclid Avenue and three full access unsignalized driveways located along Walnut Street in close proximity to the site’s current driveways. It should be noted that the project is proposing gated access to the residential component.

Figure 2 presents an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project Site.

PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Trip Generation Forecast
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and/or equations used in this analysis are based on information found in the 11th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 2021].

As presented in upper portion of Table 1, the trip generation potential of the proposed Project and the existing/entitled land use has been estimated using the average rates for the following:
 ITE Land Use Code 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)  ITE Land Use Code 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40K)
 ITE Land Use Coed 875: Department Store
 ITE Land Use Code 934: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window The middle portion of Table 1 summarizes the trip generation potential of the existing/entitled land uses and the proposed Project for Phase 1. As shown, the existing/entitled land use is forecast to generate 2,605 daily trips, with 71 trips (44 inbound, 27 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 150 trips (76 inbound, 74 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. The proposed Project is forecast to generate 1,791 daily trips, with 138 trips (35 inbound, 103 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 153 trips (91 inbound, 62 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Comparison of the trips generated by the proposed Project to the trips generated by the existing/entitled land use indicates that the proposed Project will generate 814 1309
Mr. Benjamin Mount
June 23, 2022

N:\4500\2224563 - Euclid Residential, Ontario\Report\4563 Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartments Trip Generation Letter 06-23-22.doc fewer daily trips, 67 more AM peak hour trips, and 3 fewer PM peak hour trips as part of Phase 1.

The lower portion of Table 1 summarizes the trip generation potential of the existing/entitled land use and the proposed Project for Phase 2. As shown, the existing/entitled land use is forecast to generate 1,438 daily trips, with 91 trips (46 inbound, 45 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 61 trips (31 inbound, 30 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. The proposed Project is forecast to generate 449 daily trips, with 24 trips (11 inbound, 13 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 37 trips (20 inbound, 17 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour.

Comparison of the trips generated by the proposed Project to the trips generated by the existing/entitled land use indicates that the proposed Project will generate 989 fewer daily trips, 67 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 24 fewer PM peak hour trips as part of Phase 2.

The last row of Table 1 shows the “net” trip generation potential of both Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed Project combined. As shown, the entirety of the proposed Project is forecast to result in 1,803 fewer daily trips, 0 AM peak hour trips, and 21 fewer PM peak hour trips when compared to the existing/entitled land uses.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings above, the proposed Project (Phase 1 and 2) results in a lower trip generation forecast when compared to the existing/entitled land use. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project can be expected to generate trips that would be within the trip budget originally approved for the Project site and would not create any new traffic impacts.
* * * * * * * * * *
1310
Mr. Benjamin Mount
June 23, 2022

N:\4500\2224563 - Euclid Residential, Ontario\Report\4563 Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartments Trip Generation Letter 06-23-22.doc We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this Project. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (949) 825-6175.

Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Richard E. Barretto, P.E.

Principal
Cc. Shane S. Green, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer Attachments
1311
1312
1313
1314
N:\4500\2224563 - Euclid Residential, Ontario\Report\4563 Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartments Trip Generation Letter 06-23-22.doc TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST1
Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Trip Generation Rates:
 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (TE/DU) 4.54 23% 77% 0.37 61% 39% 0.39  822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40K) (TE/TSF) 54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59  875: Department Store (TE/TSF) 25.372 64% 36% 0.58 50% 50% 1.95  934: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window (TE/TSF) 467.48 51% 49% 44.61 52% 48% 33.03 Phase 1 – Entitled/Existing Land Use Trip Generation:
 K-Mart (89,500 SF) 2,271 33 19 52 88 87 175
Pass-by Reduction3 -227 -3 -2 -5 -35 -35 -70
Shopping Plaza Subtotal 2,044 30 17 47 53 52 105
 Strip Retail (11,450 SF) 623 16 11 27 38 37 75
Pass-by Reduction3 -62 -2 -1 -3 -15 -15 -30
Shopping Plaza Subtotal 561 14 10 24 23 22 45
Phase 1 Entitled/Existing Land Use Trip Generation Total 2,605 44 27 71 76 74 150 Phase 1 – Proposed Project Trip Generation:
 Apartments (346 DU) 1,571 29 99 128 82 53 135
 Ground Floor Retail (4,500 SF) 245 7 4 11 15 15 30
Pass-by Reduction3 -25 -1 0 -1 -6 -6 -12
Ground Floor Retail Subtotal 220 6 4 10 9 9 18
Phase 1 Proposed Project Trip Generation Total 1,791 35 103 138 91 62 153 [A] Phase 1 Net Project Trip Generation Total -814 -9 76 67 15 -12 3 Phase 2 – Entitled/Existing Land Use Trip Generation:
 Carl’s Jr. (4,100 SF) 1,917 93 90 183 70 65 135
Pass-by Reduction3 -479 -47 -45 -92 -39 -35 -74
Carl’s Jr. Subtotal 1,438 46 45 91 31 30 61
Phase 2 Entitled/Existing Land Use Trip Generation Total 1,438 46 45 91 31 30 61 Phase 2 – Proposed Project Trip Generation:
 Apartments (30 DU) 136 3 8 11 7 5 12
 Ground Floor Retail (6,398 SF) 348 9 6 15 21 21 42
Pass-by Reduction3 -35 -1 -1 -2 -8 -9 -17
Ground Floor Retail Subtotal 313 8 5 13 13 12 25
Phase 2 Proposed Project Trip Generation Total 449 11 13 24 20 17 37 [B] Phase 2 Net Project Trip Generation Total -989 -35 -32 -67 -11 -13 -24 Phases 1 and 2 Total Net Project Trip Generation ([A] + [B]) -1,803 -44 44 0 4 -25 -21 Notes:

TE/TSF = Trip ends per 1,000 SF of development
TE/DU = Trip ends per dwelling unit
1 Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021). 2 ITE’s Trip Generation 11th Edition does not provide a Daily trip rate for ITE LU 875 Department Store. Therefore, the daily trip rate has been estimated using the PM peak hour trip rate and the relationship between the Daily and PM peak hour trip rates of ITE LU 821 Shopping Plaza (40-150K). 3 Pass-by trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets, which contain direct access to the generator. For this analysis, the following pass-by reduction factors were used (Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021)):
 ITE LU 822 Strip Retail Plaza (<40K): Daily and AM Peak Hour - Estimated to be 10% / PM Peak Hour – Estimated to be 40% which is consistent with ITE LU 821.  ITE LU 875 Department Store: Daily and AM Peak Hour - Estimated to be 10% / PM Peak Hour – Estimated to be 40% which is consistent with ITE LU 821.  ITE LU 934 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window: Daily - Estimated to be 25% / AM Peak Hour – 50% / PM Peak Hour – 55% 1315
1650 SPRUCE STREET, STE 106
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
951.787.9222
WWW.MIGCOM.COM
MEMO
To: David Pinto, Legacy Partners
CC: Benjamin Mount and Tim O’Brien, Legacy Partners; Dale Goldsmith, Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP
From: Chris Dugan and William Deeman
Date: September 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Technical Air Quality Assessment for PDEV22-027 Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD22-004) Project
MIG, Inc. (MIG) has prepared this memorandum at the request of Legacy Partners. This technical assessment estimates the potential construction and operational air quality emissions associated with the proposed Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development Project (proposed Project) in the City of Ontario, California (City) and determines the proposed Project’s consistency with The Ontario Plan (TOP). This technical assessment is intended to satisfy TOP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure AQ 3-1, which states that prior to discretionary approval for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), the City shall require project applicants prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval (City of Ontario, 2022). Please see Attachment 1 for the complete requirements of TOP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-1. As explained in more detail in this memo, the proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe air quality impact than identified in the TOP EIR.

EMISSIONS ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY
The proposed Project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The Project’s potential air quality emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version (V.) 2022.1. CalEEMod is a computer program recommended for use by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for use in preparing emission estimates for land use and development projects. The proposed Project’s construction and operational characteristics are based on the Project Description contained in the Project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum.

Emissions were generated using CalEEMod default assumptions, modified as follows to reflect the following Project-specific context, information, and details:
• Construction Phases: Phase 1 construction was modified to add a trenching phase and the building construction phase was changed to occur in three phases foundation, vertical, and mechanical electrical plumbing/other (MEP/other) based on project-specific information from the project construction team.
• Construction Schedule: Phase 1 was modeled as an 18-month project with overlapping site preparation, grading, trenching, building construction foundation, vertical, MEP/other, paving, and coating phases to provide a more conservative analysis, as explained below.
• Hauling: 9,105 cubic yards of soil was added to Phase 1 construction grading activities. 101,620 square feet of demolition was added to Phase 1 construction and 6,000 square feet of demolition was added to Phase 2 construction based on project-specific information from the project construction team.
1316
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 2
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
• Fugitive Dust: Watering twice per day was added to Phase 1 construction and Phase 2 construction in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
• Vehicle Trips: Vehicle trip rates and primary/pass-by trip percentages were updated based on the Projected Left-Turn Warrant for the Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartment Project report (LLG 2023).
• Area Sources: All wood burning stoves were removed from Phase 1 and Phase 2 residential development in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445. In addition, all fireplaces were updated to be electric as indicated by the Project Applicant.

Emissions estimates were calculated for the following regional and local air quality emissions scenarios:
• Phase 1 Construction
• Phase 1 Operations
• Combined Phase 1 Operations and Phase 2 Construction
• Combined Phase 1 Operations and Phase 2 Operations
MIG notes the emissions modeling conducted for the Project is considered very conservative (i.e., likely to substantially overestimate daily Project emissions) for the following reasons:
• As the Project Applicant indicated, Phase 1 construction is estimated to last up to a total of approximately 28 months; however, the modeling conducted for the project condenses these activities to 18 months and conservatively estimates potential emissions from overlapping site development and construction of the eight buildings.

This compressed schedule with overlapping phases results in more daily construction activity, and therefore more daily emissions than would occur with a 28-month schedule with no overlapping phases. Thus, modeled maximum daily emissions are based on overlapping construction phases that most likely will not actually occur. • Phase 2 construction was modeled to occur directly after Phase 1 construction was completed. The specific timing of development of Phase 2 has not yet been determined and due to existing long term lease conditions may not actually occur for approximately 10 years or more. Emissions are expected to decrease in the future as construction fleets turnover with newer (i.e., less emissive) equipment and updated standards are adopted. Thus, modeling of Phase 2 immediately after Phase 1 provides an overestimate of potential emissions.
• Comparing the combined Phase 1 Operations and Phase 2 Construction emissions to regional and local operational significance thresholds is considered a conservative approach as operational thresholds are more stringent than construction thresholds. • The localized significance thresholds applied to the Project site are based on a 5-acre site, i.e., the largest site acreage for which screening threshold values are established.

However, Phase 1 of the proposed Project would disturb approximately 9.4-acres of the site and in total the Project is approximately 10.6 acres, therefore the 5-acre threshold values would be overly stringent for the proposed Project. • Project emissions were modeled and presented as gross Project emissions rather than net Project emissions. The Project site is currently developed, but no credit has been applied. This approach overestimates the net change in emissions associated with the Project.

Please refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for detailed CalEEMod emissions estimates.

RESULTS
The results of the CalEEMod emissions modeling conducted for the proposed Project are summarized in Tables 1 to 5 below.
1317
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 3
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Table 1 below shows the modeled air quality emissions associated with Phase 1 unmitigated construction activities:

Table 1: Phase 1 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Summer 8.5 83.8 80.0 0.1 17.1 9.2 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Winter 7.4 42.2 89.7 0.1 12.4 4.0 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Summer 155 39.1 85.4 0.1 12.2 3.8 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Winter 4.6 25.7 66.6 0.1 7.3 2.5 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Localized Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Summer(A) -- 83.8 80.0 -- 15.4 8.7 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Winter(A) -- 42.2 89.7 -- 1.7 1.4 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Summer(A) -- 25.7 66.6 -- 1.0 0.8 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Winter(A) -- 39.1 85.4 -- 1.5 1.2 SCAQMD Localized Threshold(B) -- 270 2,193 -- 16 9
Exceeds Threshold? -- No No -- No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 2) and SCAQMD 2023.
(A) On-site PM emissions derived using 2% of Mobile Exhaust and On-Road Fugitive Dust emissions. (B) LST construction threshold values conservatively based on SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley for a 5-acre site with receptor distance of 25 meters (since the Phase 1 size is 9.4 acres).

As shown in Table 1, the Phase 1 unmitigated construction emissions would exceed regional SCAQMD VOC thresholds. Accordingly, as required by TOP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-1, the Project shall incorporate measures to reduce construction emissions, including the use of Super-Compliant VOC paints for residential buildings (to reduce VOC emissions). Refer to the “TOP EIR Mitigation” discussion below for additional details on emission reduction measures incorporated into the Project.
1318
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 4
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Table 2 below shows modeled air quality emissions associated with Phase 1 mitigated construction activities:

Table 2: Phase 1 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Summer 2.6 83.8 80.0 0.1 17.1 9.2 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Winter 5.3 42.2 89.7 0.1 12.4 4.0 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Summer 38.6 39.1 85.4 0.1 12.2 3.8 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Winter 3.3 25.7 66.6 0.1 7.3 2.5 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Localized Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Summer(A) -- 83.8 80.0 -- 15.4 8.7 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2024 Winter(A) -- 42.2 89.7 -- 1.7 1.4 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Summer(A) -- 25.7 66.6 -- 1.0 0.8 Phase 1 Max Daily – 2025 Winter(A) -- 39.1 85.4 -- 1.5 1.2 SCAQMD Localized Threshold(B) -- 270 2,193 -- 16 9
Exceeds Threshold? -- No No -- No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 2) and SCAQMD 2023.
(A) On-site PM emissions derived using 2% of Mobile Exhaust and On-Road Fugitive Dust emissions. (B) LST construction threshold values conservatively based on SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley for a 5-acre site with receptor distance of 25 meters (since the Phase 1 size is 9.4 acres).

As shown in Table 2, the Phase 1 mitigated construction emissions would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds or localized thresholds.
1319
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 5
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Table 3 below shows modeled air quality emissions associated with Phase 1 operations:

Table 3: Phase 1 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions(A) 19.7 7.8 80.7 0.2 13.1 3.5 SCAQMD Regional Threshold(B) 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Localized Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions© -- 1.8 26.4 -- 0.4 0.2 SCAQMD Localized Threshold(D) -- 270 2,193 -- 4 2
Exceeds Threshold? -- No No -- No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 2) and SCAQMD 2023
(A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels.
(B) SCAQMD Operational threshold presented.
(C) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels. Mobile emissions assumed 2% occur on-site.
(D) LST operations threshold values conservatively based on SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley for a 5-acre site with receptor distance of 25 meters (since the Phase 1 size is 9.4 acres).

As shown in Table 3, Phase 1 operational emissions would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds or localized thresholds.
1320
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 6
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Table 4 shows modeled air quality emissions associated with Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction:

Table 4: Phase 1 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions and Phase 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions(A) 19.7 7.8 80.7 0.2 13.1 3.5 Phase 2 Construction Max Daily Emissions(A) 21 13.3 15.5 <0.1 3.5 1.9 Total Daily Emissions(B) 40.7 21.1 96.2 0.2 16.6 5.4
SCAQMD Regional Threshold(C) 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Local Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions(D) -- 1.8 26.4 -- 0.4 0.2 Phase 2 Construction Max Daily Emissions(A) -- 12.9 14.6 -- 3.3 1.8 Total Daily Emissions(B) -- 15.1 41.9 -- 3.9 2.0
SCAQMD Localized Threshold(E) -- 270 2,193 -- 4 2
Exceeds Threshold? -- No No -- No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 2 and 3) and SCAQMD 2023
(A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels.
(B) Totals may not equal due to rounding.
(C) SCAQMD Operational threshold presented.
(D) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels. Mobile emissions assumed 2% occur on-site.
(E) LST operations threshold values conservatively based on SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley for a 5-acre site with receptor distance of 25 meters. Application of these thresholds are considered overly conservative as the above estimates include both construction and operations emissions, the Project site is approximately 10.6-acres as opposed to 5-acres, and the nearest offsite receptor would be more than 25 meters from the Phase 2 construction area.

As shown in Table 4, the combined emissions of Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds or localized thresholds. 1321
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 7
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Table 5 below shows modeled air quality emissions associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations:

Table 5: Phase 1 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions and Phase 2 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions(A) 19.7 7.8 80.7 0.2 13.1 3.5 Phase 2 Operations Max Daily Emissions(A) 2.6 1.8 17.7 <0.1 3.7 1.0 Total Daily Emissions(B) 22.3 9.6 98.4 0.2 16.8 4.5
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario/Metric
Maximum Daily Local Pollutant Emissions (Pounds
Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Operations Max Daily Emissions(C) 13.4 1.8 26.4 <0.1 0.4 0.2 Phase 2 Operations Max Daily Emissions(C) 0.1 0.1 2.0 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 Total Daily Emissions(B) 13.5 1.9 28.4 <0.1 0.5 0.2
SCAQMD Localized Threshold(D) -- 270 2,193 -- 4 2
Exceeds Threshold? -- No No -- No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 2 and 3) and SCAQMD 2023
(A)Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels.
(B)Totals may not equal due to rounding.
(C)Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter daily emissions levels. Mobile emissions assumed 2% occur on-site.
(D)LST operations threshold values conservatively based on SRA 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley for a 5-acre site with receptor distance of 25 meters (since the combined site size is 10.6 acres).

As shown in Table 5, combined emissions associated with operations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds or localized thresholds.

TOP EIR MITIGATION
As stated in TOP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-1, if construction emissions are determined to potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. As shown in Table 1, modeled Phase 1 construction VOC maximum daily emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold of 75 pounds per day. To ensure Project modeled emissions would not exceed regional or localized significance thresholds, the following mitigation measures in compliance with TOP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure AQ 3-1 are necessary for the Project:
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints during construction for residential interior and exterior paints, i.e., using paints with 10 grams per liter (g/L) or lower VOC content for residential interior and exterior surfaces.

Incorporating the above mitigation measures would result in less than significant regional emissions from the proposed Project.
1322
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Page 8
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023

CONCLUSION
As described in this memo, the construction and operational emissions from proposed Project would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD-recommended CEQA thresholds of significance and is consistent with TOP with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project, therefore, would not result in a new or substantially greater significant air quality impact than identified in the TOP EIR.

PREPARERS AND REFERENCES
This memorandum was prepared by MIG under contract to Legacy Partners. This report reflects the independent, objective, professional opinion of MIG. The following individuals were involved in the preparation and review of this Report:

MIG
Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Services [email protected] / 916-956-3802
William Deeman, Environmental Analyst I
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
The following references were used to prepare this memorandum:

City of Ontario, 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. August 2022.

Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG). 2023. Protected Left-Turn Warrant for the Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Apartment Project. July 31, 2023.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023. Air Quality Analysis Handbook – South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (Updated March 2023).

Available online at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook .
1323
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 1
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Attachment 1
TOP EIR Mitigation Measures
1324
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 1
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
1325
 







 
 


   


 ! !"## $%&'($)%*+
,-.-/01211 34.567896:
;<=>?@ABCDEFGHCI?JKLMNNOPQKRQKSLTOSOUQVKWKQPOXYTZ[OZ\]TSKQO^SQYPTO_YS\`TZZ`OPaQOLKbMPK LQYQTOSZObYQTOSLY\cYbKSQQOQVKWKPK\TQVLTQKYS\YQQVKNPONOLK\dMZQTdO\YZQPYSLTQbKSQKPe ;<=>?fgA<hIFCijkHIlmHnoCFlmHnopjmFHFCjnqrnFrm?JKTSQKS\QOKSLMPKQVK\KsKZONdKSQOUY dMZQTdO\YZQPYSLTQQPYSLNOPQYQTOSbKSQKPSKYP]t^uvYTPNOPQQOLKPsKYLYQPYSLTQVMw`TQVYdKSTQTKLUOP QPYSLTQPT\KPL_NK\KLQPTYSL_YS\wTbxbZTLQLQPYSLTQTOSTSyQOZObYZwMLKL_zXv_QVK[OZ\]TSK_VTyV{LNKK\PYTZ_ QVKNPONOLK\^SQYPTOtTPNOPQWKQPO|KSQKPb|TPbMZYQOP_YS\OQVKPUMQMPKQPYSLTQdO\KLeJKLMNNOPQ ZObYQTOSLUOPQVKdMZQTdO\YZQPYSLNOPQYQTOSbKSQKPQVYQYPKSOPQVOU^uvYTPNOPQ_wKQ`KKS}TSKxYP\ tsKSMKYS\~SQKPLQYQK€e
;<=?A‚nƒCmjnirnFHIqjnoCkrmHFCjnoJKLMNNOPQwOQVZObYZYS\PKyTOSYZKUUOPQLQOPK\MbK„KZTdTSYQK QVKSKyYQTsKKSsTPOSdKSQYZTdNYbQLOUyOO\LdOsKdKSQQVPOMyVQVKNZYSSTSyYS\TdNZKdKSQYQTOSOU QPMbaPOMQTSyYS\QVK\KsKZONdKSQOUYNZYSQOKsYZMYQKQVKUMQMPKSKK\LOUbZKYSUMKZTSy„PKbVYPyTSyYS\ KZKbQPTUTK\QPMbaNYPaTSye

†‡†ˆ)‰Š‰‹ŒŽ‘’“‘’‰”‰Œ•‰–—“—Œ‘
˜NOSTdNZKdKSQYQTOSOUPKyMZYQOPxPK™MTPKdKSQLYS\LQYS\YP\bOS\TQTOSLOUYNNPOsYZ_LOdKTdNYbQL`OMZ\ wKZKLLQVYSLTySTUTbYSQš~dNYbQ€e›{€e
JTQVOMQdTQTyYQTOS_QVKLKTdNYbQL`OMZ\wKpjFrnFCHIIœoCDnCCžHnFš ;ŸipHžF@?>=fvVKY\\TQTOSYZNONMZYQTOSyPO`QVUOPKbYLQUOPv^ ¡¢€¢YS\QVKYLLObTYQK\ KdTLLTOSL`OMZ\SOQwKbOSLTLQKSQ`TQVQVKYLLMdNQTOSLOUQVK£OMQV|OYLQt¤W¥¦L t¤W e
;ŸipHžF@?>=§|OSLQPMbQTOSYbQTsTQTKLYLLObTYQK\`TQVUMQMPK\KsKZONdKSQQVYQ`OMZ\wK YbbOddO\YQK\MS\KPv^ ¡¢€¢bOMZ\yKSKPYQKLVOPQ{QKPdKdTLLTOSLTSKRbKK\YSbK OUQVK£OMQV|OYLQt¤W¥¦LQVPKLVOZ\bPTQKPTYe
;ŸipHžF@?>=>~dNZKdKSQYQTOSOUv^ ¡¢€¢`OMZ\yKSKPYQKY\\TQTOSYZ_ZOSy{QKPdKdTLLTOSLTS KRbKK\YSbKOU£OMQV|OYLQt¤W¥¦LQVPKLVOZ\bPTQKPTYYS\bMdMZYQTsKZxbOSQPTwMQK QOQVK£OMQV|OYLQtTPzYLTS¦LSOSYQQYTSdKSQ\KLTySYQTOSLe ;ŸipHžF@?>= ^NKPYQTOSOUTS\MLQPTYZYS\`YPKVOMLTSyZYS\MLKLYbbOddO\YQK\MS\KPv^ ¡¢€¢ bOMZ\KRNOLKLKSLTQTsKPKbKNQOPLQOLMwLQYSQTYZQORTbYTPbOSQYdTSYSQbOSbKSQPYQTOSLe

†‡†¨–—“—Œ‘–‰“©ª•‰©

†‡†¨†« –%*%¬$*%­®–¯$Ž(&¯Ž°&­–*±¯²³«³´¯&*%°%¯µ¯%& vVKUOZZO`TSydTQTyYQTOSdKYLMPKL`KPKQYaKS\TPKbQZxUPOdQVK¡¢¢|KPQTUTK\¶~XetSxdO\TUTbYQTOSLQOQVK dTQTyYQTOSdKYLMPKLUPOdQVKbKPQTUTK\¶~XYPKLVO`STSLQPTaKQVPOMyVUOP\KZKQK\QKRQYS\MS\KPZTSKUOPSK`_ TSLKPQK\QKRQeWTQTyYQTOSWKYLMPK›{`YLdO\TUTK\QOPKUZKbQbVYSyKLTSQKbVSOZOyxLTSbKQVK¡¢¢|KPQTUTK\ 1326
 







 
 


   


 ! !"## $%&'($)%*+
,-./012304 ,5-6/789:;
<=>?@ABACDBAEF@GDHIJGKLKAHMGNGBGMOGPDIHGABQGJBDAFHBEARQDPBHESBTGGFUAJEFRGFBEFDQJEVGPBWXTAPT DJGFEBHIOVGPBBEY<Z[?
%\]^_`abcde
KLf gJAEJBEMAHPJGBAEFDJhDQQJEUDNOhBTGYABhESiFBDJAESEJMGUGNEQRGFBQJEVGPBHHIOVGPBBE Y<Z[jYDNASEJFAD<FUAJEFRGFBDNZIDNABh[PBkJGUAGXjA?G?WFEFGlGRQBQJEVGPBHkWQJEVGPB DQQNAPDFBHHTDNNQJGQDJGDFMHIORABDBGPTFAPDNDHHGHHRGFBGUDNIDBAFCQEBGFBADNQJEVGPB PEFHBJIPBAEFLJGNDBGMDAJmIDNABhARQDPBHBEBTGYABhESiFBDJAEgNDFFAFCnGQDJBRGFBSEJ JGUAGXDFMDQQJEUDN?oTGGUDNIDBAEFHTDNNOGQJGQDJGMAFPEFSEJRDFPGXABTpEIBTYEDHB[AJ ZIDNABh@DFDCGRGFBnAHBJAPBjpEIBTYEDHB[Z@nkRGBTEMENEChSEJDHHGHHAFCDAJmIDNABh ARQDPBH?=SPEFHBJIPBAEFLJGNDBGMPJABGJADDAJQENNIBDFBHDJGMGBGJRAFGMBETDUGBTGQEBGFBADNBE GlPGGMBTGpEIBTYEDHB[Z@nqDMEQBGMBTJGHTENMHESHACFASAPDFPGWoTGYABhESiFBDJAE OrIANMAFCMnGQDJBRGFBHTDNNJGmIAJGBTDBDNNFGXPEFHBJIPBAEFQJEVGPBHAFPEJQEJDBGSGDHAONG RABACDBAEFRGDHIJGHBEJGMIPGDAJmIDNABhGRAHHAEFH?gEBGFBADNRGDHIJGHHTDNNOGAFPEJQEJDBGM DHPEFMABAEFHESDQQJEUDNSEJDQJEVGPBDFMRDhAFPNIMGs t>GmIAJGSICABAUGMIHBPEFBJENRGDHIJGHBTDBGlPGGMpEIBTYEDHB[AJZIDNABh@DFDCGRGFB nAHBJAPBuH>INGvwKWHIPTDHs
 >GmIAJAFCIHGESFEFBElAPHEANHBDOANAxGJHBEJGMIPGXAFMGJEHAEF?  [QQNhAFCXDBGJGUGJhSEIJTEIJHBEDPBAUGHEANMAHBIJOAFCDPBAUABAGH?  oDJQAFCDFMyEJRDAFBDAFAFCDRAFARIRESzvAFPTGHESSJGGOEDJMEFBJIP{HTDINAFC MAJBWHDFMWHEANWEJEBTGJNEEHGRDBGJADNH?
t|HAFCPEFHBJIPBAEFGmIAQRGFBJDBGMOhBTG|FABGMpBDBGH<FUAJEFRGFBDNgJEBGPBAEF [CGFPhDHTDUAFCoAGJKoAGJvAFBGJAREJTACTGJGlTDIHBGRAHHAEFNARABH? t<FHIJAFCPEFHBJIPBAEFGmIAQRGFBAHQJEQGJNhHGJUAPGMDFMRDAFBDAFGMBEBTG RDFISDPBIJGJuHHBDFMDJMH?
t}ARABAFCFEFGHHGFBADNAMNAFCESPEFHBJIPBAEFGmIAQRGFBBEFEREJGBTDFSAUGPEFHGPIBAUG RAFIBGH?
t|HAFCpIQGJLYERQNADFB~iYQDAFBHSEJPEDBAFCESDJPTABGPBIJDNHIJSDPGHXTGFGUGJ QEHHAONG?[NAHBESpIQGJLYERQNADFBDJPTABGPBIJDNPEDBAFCRDFISDPBIJGHPDFOGSEIFMEF BTGpEIBTYEDHB[AJ ZIDNABh @DFDCGRGFB nAHBJAPBuHXGOHABGDBs TBBQsyyXXX?DmRM?CEUyQJMDHyOJEPTIJGHypIQGJLYERQNADFB[=@?QMS? oTGHGAMGFBASAGMRGDHIJGHHTDNNOGAFPEJQEJDBGMAFBEDNNDQQJEQJADBGPEFHBJIPBAEFMEPIRGFBH jG?C?WPEFHBJIPBAEFRDFDCGRGFBQNDFHkHIORABBGMBEBTGYABhDFMHTDNNOGUGJASAGMOhBTGYABhuH gNDFFAFCnGQDJBRGFB?
1327
 







 
 


   


 ! !"## $%&'($)%*+
,-.-/01211 34.5678968
:;<=>?@ABCB
DEF GHIJKLMNOPQLRSKNTHRUUIVRUWRLIQIXYIVIUNZ[IQLZSNZNTRUTXKLHKQLHIJKLMRQYSI\WKSIRUU YIVIUNZ[IQLTLNKQ]UWYIR]]ITTNSUKQ^R_ITLNRULISQRLKVI[NYITNOLSRQTZNSLRLKNQ`TW]HRT LSRQTKLTLNZT`aK^IZRLHT`RQYbNSZIYITLSKRQZRLHTcId_dTKYIXRU^Ted DED GHIJKLMNOPQLRSKNTHRUUIVRUWRLIQIXYIVIUNZ[IQLZSNZNTRUTXKLHKQLHIJKLMONSZNLIQLKRU KQ]N[ZRLKaKUKLKITXKLHSI_RSYLNLHIJRUKONSQKRfKSgITNWS]IThNRSYiTfKSjWRUKLMRQYkRQY lTImRQYaNN^nfJN[[WQKLMmIRULHoISTZI]LKVIcfZSKUFppqedrIXYIVIUNZ[IQLLHRLKT KQ]NQTKTLIQLXKLHLHISI]N[[IQYIYaWOOISYKTLRQ]ITTHRUUNQUMaIRZZSNVIYKOOIRTKaUI [KLK_RLKNQ[IRTWSIT`TW]HRTHK_HIOOK]KIQ]MsKQK[W[tOOK]KIQ]MgIZNSLKQ_uRUWIcstgue OKULISTHRVIKQ]NSZNSRLIYKQLNLHIZSNvI]LYITK_QLNZSNLI]LOWLWSITIQTKLKVISI]IZLNSTOSN[ HRS[OWU]NQ]IQLSRLKNQTNORKSZNUUWLRQLTRTRSITWULNOZSNwK[KLMLNIwKTLKQ_RKSZNUUWLKNQ TNWS]ITd
xyzy{y| }~€%*%$*%‚}€~$ƒ(&~ƒ
%„
†‡ˆxyz‰Š
sKLK_RLKNQ[IRTWSITRZZUKIYLNRYIVIUNZ[IQLZSNvI]LiT]NQTLSW]LKNQcsKLK_RLKNQsIRTWSIDE‹eRQYNZISRLKNQRU ZHRTIcsKLK_RLKNQsIRTWSITDEFRQYQIXsKLK_RLKNQsIRTWSIfjE‹eXNWUYSIYW]IK[ZR]LTRTTN]KRLIYXKLH ]NQTKTLIQ]MXKLHLHIŒNWLHJNRTLfjsd
%„
†‡ˆxyz‰Š
rNQIX[KLK_RLKNQ[IRTWSITRSIXRSSRQLIYONS]NQTLSW]LKNQESIURLIYK[ZR]LTWQYISŽ[ZR]LqdDE‹d %„
†‡ˆxyz‰z
fj‹ oSKNSLNYKT]SILKNQRSMRZZSNVRUaMLHIJKLMNOPQLRSKNONSYIVIUNZ[IQLZSNvI]LTTWavI]LLN JtjfcJRUKONSQKRtQVKSNQ[IQLRUjWRUKLMf]LeSIVKIXcKdId`QNQIwI[ZLZSNvI]LTe`ZSNvI]L RZZUK]RQLTTHRUUZSIZRSIRQYTWa[KLRLI]HQK]RURTTITT[IQLIVRUWRLKQ_ZNLIQLKRUZSNvI]L NZISRLKNQEZHRTIESIURLIYRKS\WRUKLMK[ZR]LTLNLHIJKLMNOPQLRSKNoURQQKQ_IZRSL[IQLONS SIVKIXRQYRZZSNVRUdGHIIVRUWRLKNQTHRUUaIZSIZRSIYKQ]NQONS[RQ]IXKLHŒNWLHJNRTLfKS jWRUKLMsRQR_I[IQLKTLSK]LcŒNWLHJNRTLfjse[ILHNYNUN_MKQRTTITTKQ_RKS\WRUKLM K[ZR]LTdŽONZISRLKNQESIURLIYRKSZNUUWLRQLTRSIYILIS[KQIYLNHRVILHIZNLIQLKRULNIw]IIYLHI ŒNWLHJNRTLfjsRYNZLIYLHSITHNUYTNOTK_QKOK]RQ]I`LHIJKLMNOPQLRSKNoURQQKQ_ IZRSL[IQLTHRUUSI\WKSILHRLRZZUK]RQLTONSQIXYIVIUNZ[IQLZSNvI]LTKQ]NSZNSRLI[KLK_RLKNQ [IRTWSITLNSIYW]IRKSZNUUWLRQLI[KTTKNQTYWSKQ_NZISRLKNQRUR]LKVKLKITdGHIKYIQLKOKIY [IRTWSITTHRUUaIKQ]UWYIYRTZRSLNOLHI]NQYKLKNQTNORZZSNVRUdoNTTKaUI[KLK_RLKNQ[IRTWSIT LNSIYW]IUNQ_ELIS[I[KTTKNQT]NWUYKQ]UWYI`aWLRSIQNLUK[KLIYLNLHIONUUNXKQ_n ‘NSTKLIETZI]KOK]YIVIUNZ[IQLLHRLSI\WKSITSIOSK_ISRLIYVIHK]UIT`LHI]NQTLSW]LKNQ YN]W[IQLTTHRUUYI[NQTLSRLIRQRYI\WRLIQW[aISNOIUI]LSK]RUTISVK]I]NQQI]LKNQTRL 1328
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 1
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
1329
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 2
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Attachment 2
Phase 1 CalEEMod Emissions Estimates and Fugitive Dust Calculations 1330
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 2
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
1331
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 1 / 101
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
1332
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 2 / 101

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Foundation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Foundation (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Foundation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Foundation (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Vertical (2024) - Unmitigated

3.12. Vertical (2024) - Mitigated

3.13. Vertical (2025) - Unmitigated

3.14. Vertical (2025) - Mitigated

3.15. MEP/Other (2024) - Unmitigated

3.16. MEP/Other (2024) - Mitigated

3.17. MEP/Other (2025) - Unmitigated

3.18. MEP/Other (2025) - Mitigated

3.19. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
1333
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 3 / 101

3.20. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.21. Coatings (2025) - Unmitigated

3.22. Coatings (2025) - Mitigated

3.23. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

3.24. Trenching (2024) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated
1334
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 4 / 101

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
1335
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 5 / 101

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles
1336
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 6 / 101

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
1337
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 7 / 101

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
1338
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 8 / 101

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1339
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 9 / 101

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1340
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 10 / 101

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 9.20
Location 34.02755638431904, -117.65236816489812
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5251
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
1341
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 11 / 101
Apartments Mid Rise 346 Dwelling Unit 2.92 458,974 29,928 0.00 1,145 — Strip Mall 5.40 1000sqft 0.12 5,400 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

6.36 Acre 6.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.5 8.48 83.8 80.0 0.13 3.57 13.5 17.1 3.26 5.91 9.17 — 16,016 16,016 0.91 0.71 32.8 16,259 Mit. 10.5 8.48 83.8 80.0 0.13 3.57 13.5 17.1 3.26 5.91 9.17 — 16,016 16,016 0.91 0.71 32.8 16,259 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.78 155 42.2 89.7 0.10 1.54 10.8 12.4 1.42 2.57 4.00 — 20,687 20,687 1.04 0.96 1.38 21,001 Mit. 8.78 39.7 42.2 89.7 0.10 1.54 10.8 12.4 1.42 2.57 4.00 — 20,687 20,687 1.04 0.96 1.38 21,001 %
Reduced
— 74% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1342
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 12 / 101
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 3.65 11.3 18.1 40.3 0.04 0.62 4.89 5.51 0.57 1.16 1.74 — 9,355 9,355 0.46 0.43 9.65 9,506 Mit. 3.65 5.02 18.1 40.3 0.04 0.62 4.89 5.51 0.57 1.16 1.74 — 9,355 9,355 0.46 0.43 9.65 9,506 %
Reduced
— 56% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.67 2.07 3.30 7.35 0.01 0.11 0.89 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.32 — 1,549 1,549 0.08 0.07 1.60 1,574 Mit. 0.67 0.92 3.30 7.35 0.01 0.11 0.89 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.32 — 1,549 1,549 0.08 0.07 1.60 1,574 %
Reduced
— 56% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 10.5 8.48 83.8 80.0 0.13 3.57 13.5 17.1 3.26 5.91 9.17 — 16,016 16,016 0.91 0.71 22.8 16,259 2025 5.47 4.62 25.7 66.6 0.06 0.90 7.21 8.10 0.83 1.72 2.54 — 14,201 14,201 0.67 0.64 32.8 14,442 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 8.78 7.41 42.2 89.7 0.10 1.54 10.8 12.4 1.42 2.57 4.00 — 20,687 20,687 1.04 0.96 1.38 21,001 2025 7.99 155 39.0 85.4 0.10 1.35 10.8 12.2 1.24 2.57 3.82 — 20,422 20,422 1.02 0.96 1.27 20,735 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.38 1.97 14.8 22.0 0.03 0.59 2.84 3.43 0.54 0.89 1.43 — 4,840 4,840 0.26 0.23 4.02 4,919 2025 3.65 11.3 18.1 40.3 0.04 0.62 4.89 5.51 0.57 1.16 1.74 — 9,355 9,355 0.46 0.43 9.65 9,506 1343 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 13 / 101
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.43 0.36 2.70 4.01 0.01 0.11 0.52 0.63 0.10 0.16 0.26 — 801 801 0.04 0.04 0.67 814 2025 0.67 2.07 3.30 7.35 0.01 0.11 0.89 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.32 — 1,549 1,549 0.08 0.07 1.60 1,574

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 10.5 8.48 83.8 80.0 0.13 3.57 13.5 17.1 3.26 5.91 9.17 — 16,016 16,016 0.91 0.71 22.8 16,259 2025 5.47 4.62 25.7 66.6 0.06 0.90 7.21 8.10 0.83 1.72 2.54 — 14,201 14,201 0.67 0.64 32.8 14,442 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 8.78 7.41 42.2 89.7 0.10 1.54 10.8 12.4 1.42 2.57 4.00 — 20,687 20,687 1.04 0.96 1.38 21,001 2025 7.99 39.7 39.0 85.4 0.10 1.35 10.8 12.2 1.24 2.57 3.82 — 20,422 20,422 1.02 0.96 1.27 20,735 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.38 1.97 14.8 22.0 0.03 0.59 2.84 3.43 0.54 0.89 1.43 — 4,840 4,840 0.26 0.23 4.02 4,919 2025 3.65 5.02 18.1 40.3 0.04 0.62 4.89 5.51 0.57 1.16 1.74 — 9,355 9,355 0.46 0.43 9.65 9,506 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.43 0.36 2.70 4.01 0.01 0.11 0.52 0.63 0.10 0.16 0.26 — 801 801 0.04 0.04 0.67 814 2025 0.67 0.92 3.30 7.35 0.01 0.11 0.89 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.32 — 1,549 1,549 0.08 0.07 1.60 1,574

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1344
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 14 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 9.81 19.7 7.51 80.7 0.16 0.19 12.9 13.1 0.18 3.27 3.45 169 19,223 19,392 18.1 0.80 55.1 20,136 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.44 17.4 7.79 51.2 0.14 0.18 12.9 13.1 0.17 3.27 3.44 169 18,221 18,390 18.1 0.82 4.66 19,092 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.68 18.6 8.03 66.6 0.15 0.19 12.8 13.0 0.18 3.25 3.43 169 17,317 17,487 18.0 0.81 25.7 18,204 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.58 3.40 1.47 12.2 0.03 0.03 2.34 2.37 0.03 0.59 0.63 28.0 2,867 2,895 2.98 0.13 4.25 3,014

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.82 7.11 6.35 60.4 0.15 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 15,202 15,202 0.71 0.69 51.8 15,478 Area 1.88 12.6 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 1,221 1,221 0.11 0.01 — 1,228 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 9.81 19.7 7.51 80.7 0.16 0.19 12.9 13.1 0.18 3.27 3.45 169 19,223 19,392 18.1 0.80 55.1 20,136 1345
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 15 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 7.33 6.61 6.81 50.7 0.14 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 14,254 14,254 0.73 0.72 1.34 14,487 Area 0.00 10.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 7.44 17.4 7.79 51.2 0.14 0.18 12.9 13.1 0.17 3.27 3.44 169 18,221 18,390 18.1 0.82 4.66 19,092 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.28 6.56 6.93 52.6 0.14 0.10 12.8 12.9 0.09 3.25 3.35 — 14,402 14,402 0.73 0.72 22.4 14,657 Area 1.29 12.0 0.13 13.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 8.68 18.6 8.03 66.6 0.15 0.19 12.8 13.0 0.18 3.25 3.43 169 17,317 17,487 18.0 0.81 25.7 18,204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.20 1.26 9.60 0.03 0.02 2.34 2.35 0.02 0.59 0.61 — 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.12 3.70 2,427 Area 0.23 2.19 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 447 447 0.04 < 0.005 — 449 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.70 16.3 21.0 0.48 0.01 — 36.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 23.3 0.00 23.3 2.33 0.00 — 81.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 1.58 3.40 1.47 12.2 0.03 0.03 2.34 2.37 0.03 0.59 0.63 28.0 2,867 2,895 2.98 0.13 4.25 3,014 1346
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 16 / 101

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.82 7.11 6.35 60.4 0.15 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 15,202 15,202 0.71 0.69 51.8 15,478 Area 1.88 12.6 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 1,221 1,221 0.11 0.01 — 1,228 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 9.81 19.7 7.51 80.7 0.16 0.19 12.9 13.1 0.18 3.27 3.45 169 19,223 19,392 18.1 0.80 55.1 20,136 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.33 6.61 6.81 50.7 0.14 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 14,254 14,254 0.73 0.72 1.34 14,487 Area 0.00 10.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 7.44 17.4 7.79 51.2 0.14 0.18 12.9 13.1 0.17 3.27 3.44 169 18,221 18,390 18.1 0.82 4.66 19,092 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.28 6.56 6.93 52.6 0.14 0.10 12.8 12.9 0.09 3.25 3.35 — 14,402 14,402 0.73 0.72 22.4 14,657 Area 1.29 12.0 0.13 13.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,700 2,700 0.25 0.02 — 2,712 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 2211347 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 17 / 101
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Total 8.68 18.6 8.03 66.6 0.15 0.19 12.8 13.0 0.18 3.25 3.43 169 17,317 17,487 18.0 0.81 25.7 18,204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.20 1.26 9.60 0.03 0.02 2.34 2.35 0.02 0.59 0.61 — 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.12 3.70 2,427 Area 0.23 2.19 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 447 447 0.04 < 0.005 — 449 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.70 16.3 21.0 0.48 0.01 — 36.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 23.3 0.00 23.3 2.33 0.00 — 81.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 1.58 3.40 1.47 12.2 0.03 0.03 2.34 2.37 0.03 0.59 0.63 28.0 2,867 2,895 2.98 0.13 4.25 3,014

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 1.47 1.47 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1348
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 18 / 101
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 0.32 3.00 2.62 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 413 413 0.02 < 0.005 — 414 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.55 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 68.4 68.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.6 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.25 0.04 2.30 1.29 0.01 0.04 0.49 0.53 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,870 1,870 0.21 0.30 3.94 1,969 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.29 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 226 226 0.02 0.04 0.20 237 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.06 1349
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 19 / 101
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.3

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 1.47 1.47 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 0.32 3.00 2.62 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 413 413 0.02 < 0.005 — 414 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.55 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 68.4 68.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.6 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
1350
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 20 / 101
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.25 0.04 2.30 1.29 0.01 0.04 0.49 0.53 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,870 1,870 0.21 0.30 3.94 1,969 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.29 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 226 226 0.02 0.04 0.20 237 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.3

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1351
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 21 / 101
Off-Road 4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60— 1.60 1.47— 1.47— 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04— 5,314 Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 7.67 7.67— 3.94 3.94———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 2.36 2.17 < 0.005 0.11— 0.11 0.10— 0.10— 348 348 0.01 < 0.005— 349 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.50 0.50— 0.26 0.26———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.43 0.40 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 57.7 57.7 < 0.005 < 0.005— 57.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.09 0.09— 0.05 0.05———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05— 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.01 256 1352
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 22 / 101
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 2.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1353
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 23 / 101
Daily,——————————————————
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 2.36 2.17 < 0.005 0.11— 0.11 0.10— 0.10— 348 348 0.01 < 0.005— 349 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.50 0.50— 0.26 0.26———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.43 0.40 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 57.7 57.7 < 0.005 < 0.005— 57.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.09 0.09— 0.05 0.05———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05— 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.01 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
1354
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 24 / 101
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 2.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.28 0.23 2.25 2.32 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 365 365 0.01 < 0.005 — 366 1355
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 25 / 101
Dust — — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 60.4 60.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.24 0.04 2.19 1.22 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,782 1,782 0.20 0.29 3.75 1,876 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.7 24.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 220 220 0.02 0.04 0.20 231 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.10 4.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001356 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 26 / 101
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.4 36.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 38.3

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.28 0.23 2.25 2.32 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 365 365 0.01 < 0.005 — 366 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 60.4 60.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.6 1357
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 27 / 101
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.24 0.04 2.19 1.22 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,782 1,782 0.20 0.29 3.75 1,876 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.7 24.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 220 220 0.02 0.04 0.20 231 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.10 4.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.4 36.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 38.3

3.7. Foundation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1358
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 28 / 101
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 0.25 2.37 2.77 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 507 507 0.02 < 0.005 — 508 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.43 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 83.9 83.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.44 1.31 1.22 21.2 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,611 3,611 0.15 0.12 14.4 3,667 Vendor 0.13 0.03 1.36 0.73 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,187 1,187 0.09 0.18 3.31 1,246 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1359
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 29 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.26 0.30 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 709 709 0.03 0.03 1.32 719 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.30 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 251 251 0.02 0.04 0.30 263 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 119 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 43.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Foundation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1360
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 30 / 101
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 0.25 2.37 2.77 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 507 507 0.02 < 0.005 — 508 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.43 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 83.9 83.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.44 1.31 1.22 21.2 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,611 3,611 0.15 0.12 14.4 3,667 Vendor 0.13 0.03 1.36 0.73 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,187 1,187 0.09 0.18 3.31 1,246 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.26 0.30 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 709 709 0.03 0.03 1.32 719 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.30 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 251 251 0.02 0.04 0.30 263 1361
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 31 / 101
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 119 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 43.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Foundation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.16 1.51 1.89 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 347 347 0.01 < 0.005 — 348 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1362
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 32 / 101
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.19 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 476 476 0.02 0.02 0.82 483 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 169 169 0.01 0.03 0.21 177 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78.8 78.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 79.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Foundation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1363
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 33 / 101
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.16 1.51 1.89 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 347 347 0.01 < 0.005 — 348 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.19 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 476 476 0.02 0.02 0.82 483 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 169 169 0.01 0.03 0.21 177 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78.8 78.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 79.9 1364
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 34 / 101
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Vertical (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 0.18 1.71 2.00 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 366 366 0.01 < 0.005 — 367 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.31 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1365
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 35 / 101
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 512 512 0.02 0.02 0.95 520 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 181 181 0.01 0.03 0.22 190 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 86.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Vertical (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1366
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 36 / 101
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 0.18 1.71 2.00 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 366 366 0.01 < 0.005 — 367 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.31 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 512 512 0.02 0.02 0.95 520 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 181 181 0.01 0.03 0.22 190 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 86.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1367
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 37 / 101

3.13. Vertical (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 0.64 5.89 7.35 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01 — 1,356 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.12 1.07 1.34 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 224 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1368
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 38 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.27 1.15 1.10 19.5 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,535 3,535 0.15 0.12 13.1 3,588 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.30 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,168 1,168 0.09 0.18 3.29 1,227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.60 0.74 8.76 0.00 0.00 1.84 1.84 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,852 1,852 0.09 0.07 3.19 1,878 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.77 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 659 659 0.05 0.10 0.80 690 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.14 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.53 311 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 0.02 0.13 114 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Vertical (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1369
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 39 / 101
Off-Road 1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43— 0.43 0.40— 0.40— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43— 0.43 0.40— 0.40— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 0.64 5.89 7.35 0.01 0.24— 0.24 0.22— 0.22— 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01— 1,356 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.12 1.07 1.34 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 224 224 0.01 < 0.005— 224 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.27 1.15 1.10 19.5 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77— 3,535 3,535 0.15 0.12 13.1 3,588 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.30 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11— 1,168 1,168 0.09 0.18 3.29 1,227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77— 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 1370
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 40 / 101
Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.60 0.74 8.76 0.00 0.00 1.84 1.84 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,852 1,852 0.09 0.07 3.19 1,878 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.77 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 659 659 0.05 0.10 0.80 690 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.14 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.53 311 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 0.02 0.13 114 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. MEP/Other (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.21 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 221 221 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 1371
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 41 / 101
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.5 36.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 309 309 0.01 0.01 0.57 313 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 0.02 0.13 114 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 51.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. MEP/Other (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1372
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 42 / 101
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.21 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 221 221 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.5 36.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.24 1.43 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,310 3,310 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,351 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.42 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,188 1,188 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,243 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1373
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 43 / 101
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 309 309 0.01 0.01 0.57 313 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 0.02 0.13 114 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 51.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. MEP/Other (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1374
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 44 / 101
Off-Road 0.84 0.70 6.52 8.14 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,497 1,497 0.06 0.01 — 1,502 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.19 1.49 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 248 248 0.01 < 0.005 — 249 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.27 1.15 1.10 19.5 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,535 3,535 0.15 0.12 13.1 3,588 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.30 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,168 1,168 0.09 0.18 3.29 1,227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.66 0.82 9.70 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.48 0.48 — 2,052 2,052 0.09 0.08 3.53 2,081 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.85 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 730 730 0.06 0.11 0.89 765 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 0.15 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 340 340 0.02 0.01 0.59 344 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.15 127 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001375 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 45 / 101

3.18. MEP/Other (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.84 0.70 6.52 8.14 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,497 1,497 0.06 0.01 — 1,502 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.19 1.49 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 248 248 0.01 < 0.005 — 249 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1376
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 46 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.27 1.15 1.10 19.5 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,535 3,535 0.15 0.12 13.1 3,588 Vendor 0.12 0.03 1.30 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,168 1,168 0.09 0.18 3.29 1,227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 1.08 1.22 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,241 3,241 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,282 Vendor 0.11 0.03 1.36 0.70 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,169 1,169 0.09 0.18 0.09 1,224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.66 0.82 9.70 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.48 0.48 — 2,052 2,052 0.09 0.08 3.53 2,081 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.85 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 730 730 0.06 0.11 0.89 765 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 0.15 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 340 340 0.02 0.01 0.59 344 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.15 127 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.19. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1377
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 47 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.2 95.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.6 Paving — 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1378
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 48 / 101
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.20. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.2 95.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.6 Paving — 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1379
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 49 / 101
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.21. Coatings (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —1380
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 50 / 101
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 150 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 8.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1381
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 51 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.72 0.65 0.73 8.84 0.00 0.00 1.97 1.97 0.00 0.46 0.46 — 1,944 1,944 0.09 0.07 0.20 1,969 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.22. Coatings (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 35.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1382
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 52 / 101
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.92 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.72 0.65 0.73 8.84 0.00 0.00 1.97 1.97 0.00 0.46 0.46 — 1,944 1,944 0.09 0.07 0.20 1,969 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1383
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 53 / 101
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.23. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 0.38 2.91 3.71 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 547 547 0.02 < 0.005 — 549 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 0.38 2.91 3.71 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 547 547 0.02 < 0.005 — 549 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.18 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.0 33.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1384
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 54 / 101
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.46 5.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.48 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.05 6.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.24. Trenching (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1385 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 55 / 101
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 0.38 2.91 3.71 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 547 547 0.02 < 0.005 — 549 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 0.38 2.91 3.71 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 547 547 0.02 < 0.005 — 549 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.18 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.0 33.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.46 5.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.48 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1386
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 56 / 101
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.05 6.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

6.52 5.94 5.19 49.3 0.12 0.08 10.4 10.5 0.08 2.65 2.73 — 12,326 12,326 0.58 0.57 41.9 12,551 1387
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 57 / 101
Strip Mall 1.29 1.16 1.15 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.45 2.47 0.02 0.62 0.64 — 2,876 2,876 0.13 0.13 9.84 2,927 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.82 7.11 6.35 60.4 0.15 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 15,202 15,202 0.71 0.69 51.8 15,478 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

6.11 5.53 5.57 41.5 0.11 0.08 10.4 10.5 0.08 2.65 2.73 — 11,558 11,558 0.61 0.58 1.09 11,749 Strip Mall 1.22 1.09 1.24 9.24 0.03 0.02 2.45 2.47 0.02 0.62 0.64 — 2,696 2,696 0.13 0.13 0.26 2,739 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.33 6.61 6.81 50.7 0.14 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 14,254 14,254 0.73 0.72 1.34 14,487 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.11 1.00 1.03 7.85 0.02 0.01 1.89 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 — 1,933 1,933 0.10 0.10 3.00 1,968 Strip Mall 0.22 0.20 0.23 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 0.45 < 0.005 0.11 0.12 — 451 451 0.02 0.02 0.70 459 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.33 1.20 1.26 9.60 0.03 0.02 2.34 2.35 0.02 0.59 0.61 — 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.12 3.70 2,427

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1388
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 58 / 101
Apartme
Mid Rise

6.52 5.94 5.19 49.3 0.12 0.08 10.4 10.5 0.08 2.65 2.73 — 12,326 12,326 0.58 0.57 41.9 12,551 Strip Mall 1.29 1.16 1.15 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.45 2.47 0.02 0.62 0.64 — 2,876 2,876 0.13 0.13 9.84 2,927 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.82 7.11 6.35 60.4 0.15 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 15,202 15,202 0.71 0.69 51.8 15,478 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

6.11 5.53 5.57 41.5 0.11 0.08 10.4 10.5 0.08 2.65 2.73 — 11,558 11,558 0.61 0.58 1.09 11,749 Strip Mall 1.22 1.09 1.24 9.24 0.03 0.02 2.45 2.47 0.02 0.62 0.64 — 2,696 2,696 0.13 0.13 0.26 2,739 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.33 6.61 6.81 50.7 0.14 0.10 12.9 13.0 0.09 3.27 3.36 — 14,254 14,254 0.73 0.72 1.34 14,487 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.11 1.00 1.03 7.85 0.02 0.01 1.89 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 — 1,933 1,933 0.10 0.10 3.00 1,968 Strip Mall 0.22 0.20 0.23 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 0.45 < 0.005 0.11 0.12 — 451 451 0.02 0.02 0.70 459 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.33 1.20 1.26 9.60 0.03 0.02 2.34 2.35 0.02 0.59 0.61 — 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.12 3.70 2,427

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1389
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 59 / 101
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,416 1,416 0.14 0.02 — 1,425
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.1 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,466 1,466 0.14 0.02 — 1,475 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,416 1,416 0.14 0.02 — 1,425
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.1 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,466 1,466 0.14 0.02 — 1,475 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 235 235 0.02 < 0.005 — 236
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.25 8.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.30 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 243 243 0.02 < 0.005 — 244 1390
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 60 / 101

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,416 1,416 0.14 0.02 — 1,425
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.1 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,466 1,466 0.14 0.02 — 1,475 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,416 1,416 0.14 0.02 — 1,425
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.1 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,466 1,466 0.14 0.02 — 1,475 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 235 235 0.02 < 0.005 — 236
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.25 8.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.30 1391
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 61 / 101
Other — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 243 243 0.02 < 0.005 — 244

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.11 0.06 0.96 0.41 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,224 1,224 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,227 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,234 1,234 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,238 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.11 0.06 0.96 0.41 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,224 1,224 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,227 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,234 1,234 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,238 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1392
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 62 / 101
Apartme 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 203 203 0.02 < 0.005 — 203 nts
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.69 1.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.69 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 204 204 0.02 < 0.005 — 205

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.11 0.06 0.96 0.41 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,224 1,224 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,227 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,234 1,234 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,238 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.11 0.06 0.96 0.41 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,224 1,224 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,227 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 1393
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 63 / 101
Total 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,234 1,234 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,238 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.02 0.01 0.18 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 203 203 0.02 < 0.005 — 203 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.69 1.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.69 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 204 204 0.02 < 0.005 — 205

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Consum
er
Products
— 9.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.88 1.78 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.6 Total 1.88 12.6 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 1,221 1,221 0.11 0.01 — 1,228 1394
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 64 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Consum
er
Products
— 9.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 10.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 Consum
er
Products
— 1.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.23 0.22 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.06 6.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.08 Total 0.23 2.19 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 1395
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 65 / 101
Consum — 9.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.88 1.78 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.6 Total 1.88 12.6 0.19 19.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 1,221 1,221 0.11 0.01 — 1,228 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Consum
er
Products
— 9.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 10.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1,168 1,168 0.11 0.01 — 1,175 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 Consum
er
Products
— 1.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.23 0.22 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.06 6.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.08 Total 0.23 2.19 0.02 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4 1396
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 66 / 101

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 96.1 124 2.84 0.07 — 215
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.77 2.58 3.35 0.08 < 0.005 — 5.89 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 96.1 124 2.84 0.07 — 215
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.77 2.58 3.35 0.08 < 0.005 — 5.89 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.58 15.9 20.5 0.47 0.01 — 35.6
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.43 0.55 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.97 1397
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 67 / 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.70 16.3 21.0 0.48 0.01 — 36.6

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 96.1 124 2.84 0.07 — 215
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.77 2.58 3.35 0.08 < 0.005 — 5.89 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 96.1 124 2.84 0.07 — 215
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.77 2.58 3.35 0.08 < 0.005 — 5.89 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.4 98.7 127 2.92 0.07 — 221 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1398
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 68 / 101
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — 4.58 15.9 20.5 0.47 0.01 — 35.6 nts
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.43 0.55 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.97 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.70 16.3 21.0 0.48 0.01 — 36.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 138 0.00 138 13.8 0.00 — 482
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.06 0.00 3.06 0.31 0.00 — 10.7 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 138 0.00 138 13.8 0.00 — 482
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.06 0.00 3.06 0.31 0.00 — 10.7 1399
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 69 / 101
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 22.8 0.00 22.8 2.28 0.00 — 79.9
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.05 0.00 — 1.77 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 23.3 0.00 23.3 2.33 0.00 — 81.6

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 138 0.00 138 13.8 0.00 — 482
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.06 0.00 3.06 0.31 0.00 — 10.7 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1400
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 70 / 101
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — 138 0.00 138 13.8 0.00 — 482 nts
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.06 0.00 3.06 0.31 0.00 — 10.7 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 141 0.00 141 14.1 0.00 — 493 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 22.8 0.00 22.8 2.28 0.00 — 79.9
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.05 0.00 — 1.77 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 23.3 0.00 23.3 2.33 0.00 — 81.6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.29 3.29
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
1401
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 71 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.29 3.29
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 0.54
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.29 3.29
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.29 3.29
1402
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 72 / 101
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.32 3.32
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 0.54
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1403
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 73 / 101
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1404
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 74 / 101

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1405
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 75 / 101
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1406
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 76 / 101
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1407
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 77 / 101
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 1408
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 78 / 101
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1409 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 79 / 101
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1410
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 80 / 101
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2024 8/1/2024 5.00 44.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/1/2024 8/1/2024 5.00 24.0 — Grading Grading 7/24/2024 9/24/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Foundation Building Construction 9/15/2024 3/15/2025 5.00 130 — Vertical Building Construction 10/15/2024 10/15/2025 5.00 262 — MEP/Other Building Construction 11/15/2024 11/15/2025 5.00 261 — Paving Paving 10/1/2025 11/1/2025 5.00 23.0 —
Coatings Architectural Coating 11/1/2025 11/30/2025 5.00 20.0 — Trenching Trenching 9/1/2024 10/1/2024 5.00 22.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 1411
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 81 / 101
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Foundation Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Foundation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Foundation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Foundation Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Foundation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Vertical Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Vertical Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Vertical Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Vertical Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Vertical Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
MEP/Other Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
MEP/Other Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 MEP/Other Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
MEP/Other Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
MEP/Other Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Coatings Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50
1412
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 82 / 101
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Trenching Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Foundation Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Foundation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Foundation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Foundation Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Foundation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Vertical Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Vertical Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Vertical Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Vertical Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Vertical Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
1413
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 83 / 101
MEP/Other Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
MEP/Other Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 MEP/Other Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
MEP/Other Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
MEP/Other Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Coatings Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 26.6 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
1414
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 84 / 101
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 25.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Foundation————
Foundation Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Foundation Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Foundation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Foundation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Vertical————
Vertical Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Vertical Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Vertical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Vertical Onsite truck—— HHDT
MEP/Other————
MEP/Other Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
MEP/Other Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
MEP/Other Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
MEP/Other Onsite truck—— HHDT
Coatings————
Coatings Worker 151 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Coatings Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Coatings Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Coatings Onsite truck—— HHDT
Trenching————
1415
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 85 / 101
Trenching Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 26.6 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 25.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
1416
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 86 / 101
Foundation————
Foundation Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Foundation Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Foundation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Foundation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Vertical————
Vertical Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Vertical Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Vertical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Vertical Onsite truck—— HHDT
MEP/Other————
MEP/Other Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
MEP/Other Vendor 37.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
MEP/Other Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
MEP/Other Onsite truck—— HHDT
Coatings————
Coatings Worker 151 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Coatings Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Coatings Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Coatings Onsite truck—— HHDT
Trenching————
Trenching Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
1417
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 87 / 101
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Coatings 929,422 309,807 8,100 2,700 16,624

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 101,620 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 33.0 0.00 —
Grading 9,105 0.00 44.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.36

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
1418
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 88 / 101

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.36 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,571 1,571 1,571 573,357 14,708 14,708 14,708 5,368,476 Strip Mall 294 294 294 107,321 3,449 3,449 3,449 1,258,840 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,571 1,571 1,571 573,357 14,708 14,708 14,708 5,368,476 Strip Mall 294 294 294 107,321 3,449 3,449 3,449 1,258,840 1419
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 89 / 101
Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Surfaces

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 311
No Fireplaces 35
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 311
No Fireplaces 35 1420
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 90 / 101
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
929422.35 309,807 8,100 2,700 16,624

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,493,392 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,818,864 Strip Mall 52,533 346 0.0330 0.0040 31,836 1421
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 91 / 101
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,493,392 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,818,864 Strip Mall 52,533 346 0.0330 0.0040 31,836
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,421,687 587,421
Strip Mall 399,992 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,421,687 587,421
Strip Mall 399,992 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year) 1422
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 92 / 101
Apartments Mid Rise 256 —
Strip Mall 5.67 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 256 —
Strip Mall 5.67 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 1423
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 93 / 101
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 1424
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 94 / 101

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 1425
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 95 / 101

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
1426
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 96 / 101
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
1427
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 97 / 101

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 80.0
AQ-PM 95.0
AQ-DPM 96.7
Drinking Water 99.7
Lead Risk Housing 26.8
Pesticides 19.2
Toxic Releases 65.3
Traffic 91.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 40.8
Groundwater 37.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 26.7
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 43.9
Cardio-vascular 72.2
Low Birth Weights 23.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 64.1
Housing 29.7
Linguistic 50.5
Poverty 41.0
1428
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 98 / 101
Unemployment 33.6

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 52.03387656
Employed 54.83125882
Median HI 65.14820993
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 49.15950212
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 14.78249711
Transportation —
Auto Access 78.96830489
Active commuting 27.28089311
Social —
2-parent households 81.31656615
Voting 64.17297575
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 41.75542153
Park access 22.69985885
Retail density 45.77184653
Supermarket access 57.37200051
Tree canopy 18.41396125
Housing —
Homeownership 86.56486591
1429
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 99 / 101
Housing habitability 75.79879379
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 60.87514436 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 87.5914282
Uncrowded housing 53.4838958
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 49.96791993
Arthritis 31.2
Asthma ER Admissions 51.4
High Blood Pressure 43.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 42.8
Asthma 37.3
Coronary Heart Disease 47.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 35.3
Diagnosed Diabetes 41.8
Life Expectancy at Birth 68.4
Cognitively Disabled 43.0
Physically Disabled 69.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 19.3
Mental Health Not Good 43.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 65.5
Physical Health Not Good 42.2
Stroke 51.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 47.1
Current Smoker 44.4
1430
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 100 / 101
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 50.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 33.8
Elderly 56.5
English Speaking 35.7
Foreign-born 48.2
Outdoor Workers 65.0
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 53.7
Traffic Density 89.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 57.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 73.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 64.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 52.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 1431 Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 1 Mitigated Detailed Report, 9/8/2023 101 / 101

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Updated lot acreage and building square feet based on project site plan received 6/29/23.

Construction: Construction Phases Updated construction building construction phases and schedule based on data request response received 8/28/23.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Updated Trenching equipment to include one trencher, one backhoe and one signal board.

Construction: Architectural Coatings —
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Updated Grading soil import based on data request response received 8/28/23.

Operations: Vehicle Data Updated trip rates and primary/pass-by trip percentages based on LLG traffic information received 7/31/23.

Operations: Hearths Updated number of fireplaces based on data request response received 8/28/23. Removed wood stoves based on SCAQMD Rule 445.
1432
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 2
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
1433
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 3
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
Attachment 3
Phase 2 CalEEMod Emissions Estimates and Fugitive Dust Calculations 1434
Legacy Ontario PUD Project, Ontario, CA Attachment 3
Air Quality Technical Memorandum September 8, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
1435
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 1 / 48
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
1436
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 2 / 48

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
1437
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 3 / 48

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
1438
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 4 / 48

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
1439
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 5 / 48

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
1440
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 6 / 48

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1441
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 9.20
Location 34.0271018753637, -117.65141705846071
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5251
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.18

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
1442
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 8 / 48
Apartments Mid Rise 23.0 Dwelling Unit 0.61 22,080 0.00 0.00 76.0 — Strip Mall 6.60 1000sqft 0.15 6,600 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.75 Acre 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.32 1.10 8.76 11.4 0.02 0.29 0.27 0.57 0.27 0.07 0.34 — 2,166 2,166 0.09 0.04 1.17 2,181 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 21.0 13.3 15.5 0.03 0.58 2.89 3.47 0.53 1.37 1.90 — 2,886 2,886 0.13 0.06 0.03 2,909 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.86 1.30 5.89 7.38 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.25 — 1,412 1,412 0.06 0.03 0.31 1,422 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.16 0.24 1.07 1.35 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.05 — 234 234 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 235

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
1443
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 9 / 48
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.32 1.10 8.76 11.4 0.02 0.29 0.27 0.57 0.27 0.07 0.34 — 2,166 2,166 0.09 0.04 1.17 2,181 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.74 21.0 13.3 15.5 0.03 0.58 2.89 3.47 0.53 1.37 1.90 — 2,886 2,886 0.13 0.06 0.03 2,909 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.86 1.30 5.89 7.38 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.25 — 1,412 1,412 0.06 0.03 0.31 1,422 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.16 0.24 1.07 1.35 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.05 — 234 234 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 235

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.10 2.57 1.73 17.7 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.72 0.03 0.94 0.97 15.7 4,589 4,605 1.79 0.20 13.4 4,722 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.82 2.30 1.84 13.4 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.72 0.03 0.94 0.97 15.7 4,319 4,335 1.79 0.20 0.54 4,441 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.92 2.39 1.88 15.0 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.70 0.03 0.93 0.96 15.7 4,291 4,307 1.79 0.20 5.89 4,419 1444
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 10 / 48
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.35 0.44 0.34 2.74 0.01 0.01 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 2.59 710 713 0.30 0.03 0.98 732

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.92 1.73 1.64 16.1 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.71 0.03 0.94 0.96 — 4,248 4,248 0.18 0.19 13.2 4,322 Area 0.17 0.84 0.01 1.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 82.3 82.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 82.8 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 249 249 0.02 < 0.005 — 250 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 9.35 12.1 0.29 0.01 — 21.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 0.00 12.9 1.29 0.00 — 45.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.10 2.57 1.73 17.7 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.72 0.03 0.94 0.97 15.7 4,589 4,605 1.79 0.20 13.4 4,722 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.81 1.62 1.77 13.4 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.71 0.03 0.94 0.96 — 3,983 3,983 0.19 0.19 0.34 4,047 Area 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.1 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 249 249 0.02 < 0.005 — 250 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 9.35 12.1 0.29 0.01 — 21.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 0.00 12.9 1.29 0.00 — 45.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 1.82 2.30 1.84 13.4 0.04 0.03 3.68 3.72 0.03 0.94 0.97 15.7 4,319 4,335 1.79 0.20 0.54 4,441 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1445
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 11 / 48
Mobile 1.79 1.60 1.79 13.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 — 4,025 4,025 0.19 0.20 5.69 4,094 Area 0.12 0.78 0.01 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 8.52 8.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.56 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 249 249 0.02 < 0.005 — 250 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 9.35 12.1 0.29 0.01 — 21.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 0.00 12.9 1.29 0.00 — 45.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 1.92 2.39 1.88 15.0 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.70 0.03 0.93 0.96 15.7 4,291 4,307 1.79 0.20 5.89 4,419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.33 0.29 0.33 2.53 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 666 666 0.03 0.03 0.94 678 Area 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 1.55 2.01 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.53 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 0.00 2.13 0.21 0.00 — 7.46 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.35 0.44 0.34 2.74 0.01 0.01 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 2.59 710 713 0.30 0.03 0.98 732

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1446
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 12 / 48
Off-Road 1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Equipment
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.71 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.29 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 234 234 0.02 0.04 0.01 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1447
Legacy Ontario PUD Construction Phase 2 Detailed Report, 9/1/2023 13 / 48
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.79 8.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 2.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —