Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation.

Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report.

Geotechnical Design Considerations
• Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements and at the ground surface at all of the boring locations, extending to depths of 2½ to 6½± feet below the existing site grades.
• Results of laboratory testing indicate that the fill soils are compressible when loaded and may be subject to hydrocollapse when inundated with water. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for support of the foundation loads of the new structure. • The fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils possess varying strengths. The results of laboratory testing indicate that the near-surface soils within the upper 5 to 6± feet possess a slight to moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration as well as consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those that will be exerted by the new foundations.
• It is anticipated that demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements will cause disturbance of the upper 5 to 6± feet of soil.
• Remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building area in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety and any soils disturbed during the demolition process, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils.

Site Preparation Recommendations
• Demolition of the existing structures and pavements will be required in order to facilitate construction of the new development. Demolition should also include all utilities and any other subsurface improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development.

Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 2-inch particle size mixed with on-site sandy soils, and reutilized as compacted structural fill, or it may be crushed into miscellaneous base (CMB).
• Existing vegetation and organic materials within the landscape areas should be disposed of off-site, or in non-structural areas of the property.
• Remedial grading is recommended to be performed within the proposed building area in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the nearsurface native alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process. The soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a depth of 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations. • The depth of overexcavation should also be sufficient to remove any existing fill soils. The proposed foundation influence zones should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade.
• Following completion of the overexcavation, the resulting subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any additional soils that should be overexcavated.

The resulting soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture content of 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture, to a depth of at least 12 inches. The 1521
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

overexcavation subgrade soils should then be recompacted under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. All structural fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.
• The new pavement and flatwork subgrade soils are recommended to be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. • Based on the results of corrosivity testing, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe.

Foundation Design Recommendations
• Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 lbs/ft2 maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. • Reinforcement consisting of at least two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom) in strip footings.

Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations.

Building Floor Slab Design Recommendations
• Conventional Slab-on-Grade: minimum 6 inches thick.
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in.
• Reinforcement is not expected to be necessary for geotechnical considerations. The actual thickness and reinforcement of the floor slab should be determined by the structural engineer.

Pavement Design Recommendations
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 40)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 4 6 7 8 10
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R = 40)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic Areas
TI =7.0 TI =8.0 TI =9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
1522
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 22P129, dated January 21, 2022. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation.
1523
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Conditions
The subject site is located on the north side of East Airport Drive, 1,310± feet east of the intersection of South Wineville Avenue and East Airport Drive in Ontario, California. The site is also referenced by the street address 5355 East Airport Drive. The site is bounded to the north by Union Pacific railroad tracks, to the east and west by an industrial development, and to the south by East Airport Drive. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, enclosed as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report.

The site consists of an irregular-shaped property, 14.58± acres in size. The site is developed to manufacture and store animal feed grains. The development includes several buildings and shed structures ranging in size from 2,200± ft2to 20,175± ft2, and several silos and above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) primarily located in the north-central region of the site. The existing structures are generally of concrete tilt-up and/or metal-framed construction, and are presumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The existing structures are generally surrounded by asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements, with isolated areas of Portland cement concrete (PCC), aggregate base pavements, and exposed soils in the south-central portion of the site. The existing pavements are in poor condition, with moderate to severe cracking throughout. Two medium-size trees are present in the south-central region of the site.

Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation, the site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent.

3.2 Proposed Development
A preliminary site plan, identified as Scheme 01 and prepared by RGA, for the proposed development was provided to our office by the client. Based on this plan, the subject site will be developed with a 259,189± ft² warehouse, located in the north-central region of the site. Dockhigh doors will be constructed along a portion of the south building wall. The proposed building is expected to be surrounded by AC pavements in the parking and drive areas, PCC pavements in the loading dock area, and concrete flatwork and landscaped planters throughout the site.

Detailed structural information has not been provided. It is assumed that the new building will be a single-story structure of tilt-up concrete construction, supported on a conventional shallow foundation system with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 100 kips and 4 to 7 kips per linear foot, respectively.

No significant amounts of below-grade construction, such as basements or crawl spaces, are expected to be included in the proposed development. Based on the assumed topography, cuts 1524
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

and fills of up to 3± feet are expected to be necessary to achieve the proposed building pad grades. It should be noted that this estimate does not include any remedial grading recommendations which are presented in a subsequent section of this report. 1525
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of five (5) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-5) advanced to depths of 20 to 30± feet below the existing site grades.

All of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff.

The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory.

The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B.

4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Pavements
AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface of Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4. The pavement sections generally consist of 0 to 2½± inches of AC, underlain by 1 to 3½± inches of aggregate base.

Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4 and at the ground surface at Boring No. B-5, extending to depths of 2½ to 6½± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense sands and silty sands, with occasional dense silty sands. The fill soils possess a disturbed and mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill.
1526
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

Alluvium
Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all of the boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 30± feet below existing site grades. The near-surface alluvium generally consists of loose to medium dense sands and sandy silts, extending to depths of 6½ to 12± feet. At greater depths, the alluvium generally consists of medium dense to dense sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Boring No. B-3 encountered a stratum of very dense silty sands and sandy silts at a depth of 14 to 17± feet. Boring No. B-5 encountered a stratum of loose well-graded sands at a depth of 12 to 17± feet.

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 30± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

As part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine groundwater levels for the site. Water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record (identified as State Well Number: 01S06W29H001S) is located 3,400± feet southeast of the project site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 277± feet below the ground surface in April 2019. 1527
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths.

Classification
All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. The field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report.

Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs.

Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-8 in Appendix C of this report.

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
One representative bulk sample has been tested for its maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D-1557 and are presented on Plate C-9 in Appendix C of this report. This test is generally used to compare the in-situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing.

Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date.

Soluble Sulfates
A representative sample of the near-surface soil was submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes 1528
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report.

Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) Sulfate Classification B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.040 Not Applicable (S0)
Corrosivity Testing
One representative sample of the near-surface soils was submitted to a subcontracted corrosion engineering laboratory to identify potentially corrosive characteristics with respect to common construction materials. The corrosivity testing included a determination of the electrical resistivity, pH, and chloride and nitrate concentrations of the soils, as well as other tests. The results of some of these tests are presented below.

Sample Identification Saturated Resistivity
(ohm-cm) pH Chlorides(mg/kg)
Nitrates
(mg/kg)
B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 2,010 8.1 19.3 1.4
1529
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations.

The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The recommendations are provided with the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to verify compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., (SCG) as the geotechnical consultant from the beginning to the end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing testing and observation services shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development.

6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. The performance of a site-specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life.

Faulting and Seismicity
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, SCG did not identify any evidence of faulting during the geotechnical investigations. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low.

The potential for other geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low. Based on Map Number 06071C8633J, dated September 2, 2016, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps, the project site is in an area designated as Zone X which is determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. 1530
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

Seismic Design Parameters
The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site.

Based on standards in place at the time of this report, the proposed development is expected to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC), which was adopted on January 1, 2020.

The 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool, a web-based software application available at the website www.seismicmaps.org. This software application calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with several building code reference documents, including ASCE 7-16, upon which the 2019 CBC is based. The application utilizes a database of risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) site accelerations at 0.01-degree intervals for each of the code documents.

The table below was created using data obtained from the application. The output generated from this program is included as Plate E-1 in Appendix E of this report.

The 2019 CBC requires that a site-specific ground motion study be performed in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 for Site Class D sites with a mapped S1 value greater than 0.2.

However, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 also indicates an exception to the requirement for a sitespecific ground motion hazard analysis for certain structures on Site Class D sites. The commentary for Section 11 of ASCE 7-16 (Page 534 of Section C11 of ASCE 7-16) indicates that “In general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for site-specific hazard analysis to very tall and or flexible structures at Site Class D sites.” Based on our understanding of the proposed development, the seismic design parameters presented below were calculated assuming that the exception in Section 11.4.8 applies to the proposed structure at this site. However, the structural engineer should verify that this exception is applicable to the proposed structure. Based on the exception, the spectral response accelerations presented below were calculated using the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) from Tables 1613.2.3(1) and 1613.2.3(2) presented in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC. 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SS 1.692 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.625 Site Class --- D
Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMS 1.692 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 1.063 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SDS 1.128 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SD1 0.708 1531
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

It should be noted that the site coefficient Fv and the parameters SM1 and SD1 were not included in the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool output for the 2019 CBC. We calculated these parameters-based on Table 1613.2.3(2) in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC using the value of S1 obtained from the Seismic Design Maps Tool, assuming that a site-specific ground motion hazards analysis is not required for the proposed building at this site.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed seismic hazards mapping in the area of the subject site. The general liquefaction susceptibility of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays.

Map FH28C for the Guasti 7.5-Minute Quadrangle indicates that the subject site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by the county of San Bernardino and the lack of a historic high ground water table within the upper 50± feet of the ground surface, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project.

6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations
General
All of the borings encountered artificial fill materials, extending to depths of 2½ to 6½± feet below the existing site grades. Results of laboratory testing indicate that the fill soils are compressible when loaded and may be subject to minor hydrocollapse when inundated with water. Based on a lack of documentation regarding the placement and compaction of the existing fill materials, these soils are considered to consist of undocumented fill. Therefore, the fill soils in their present condition are not suitable for the support of the foundation loads of the proposed building. The fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils possess varying strengths. The results of laboratory testing indicate that the near-surface soils within the upper 5 to 6± feet possess a slight to moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration as well as consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those that will be exerted by the new foundations. Additionally, it is anticipated that demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements will cause disturbance of the upper 5 to 6± feet of soil. Therefore, remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building area in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the near-surface native 1532
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils.

Based on the results of corrosivity testing, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe.

Settlement
The recommended remedial grading will remove the existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils and replace these materials as compacted structural fill.

The native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of overexcavation will not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new structure. Provided that the recommended remedial grading is completed, the post-construction static settlements of the proposed structure are expected to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches for total and differential settlements of shallow foundations, respectively.

Expansion
The near-surface soils consist of sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site.

Soluble Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate that the selected sample of the on-site soils contains a sulfate concentration that corresponds to Class S0 with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. It is, however, recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at pad grade within the building area.

Corrosion Potential
The results of laboratory testing indicate that the tested sample of the on-site soils possesses a saturated resistivity value of 2,010 ohm-cm, and a pH value of 8.1. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site. Resistivity, pH, redox potential, relative soil moisture content and sulfides are the factors that enter into the evaluation procedure. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA procedure, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe. Therefore, polyethylene protection may be required for cast iron or ductile iron pipes. It should be noted that SCG does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, the client may also wish to contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation.

A relatively low concentration (19.3 mg/kg) of chlorides was detected in the sample submitted for corrosivity testing. In general, soils possessing chloride concentrations in excess of 500 parts per million (ppm) are considered to be corrosive with respect to steel reinforcement within 1533
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

reinforced concrete. Based on the lack of any significant chlorides in the tested sample, the site is considered to have a C1 chloride exposure in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.

Therefore, a specialized concrete mix design for reinforced concrete for protection against chloride exposure is not considered warranted.

Nitrates present in soil can be corrosive to copper tubing at concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg.

The tested sample possesses a nitrate concentration of 1.4 mg/kg. Based on this test result, the on-site soils are not considered to be corrosive to copper pipe.

It should be noted that SCG does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, the client may wish to contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation.

Shrinkage/Subsidence
Removal and recompaction of the near-surface existing soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 5 to 15 percent. However, shrinkage estimates for the individual samples range between 3 and 18 percent based on the results of density testing and the assumption that the onsite soils will be compacted to about 92 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. It should be noted that the shrinkage estimate is based on the results of dry density testing performed on small-diameter samples of the existing soils taken at the boring locations. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, SCG can perform a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples. Please contact SCG for details and a cost estimate regarding a shrinkage study, if desired.

Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.15 feet. This estimate may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by native alluvial soils.

These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be dependent on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely.

Grading and Foundation Plan Review
Grading and foundation plans were not available at the time of this report. It is therefore recommended that we be provided with copies of the preliminary grading and foundation plans, when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and assumptions contained within this report.

6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide 1534
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below.

Site Stripping and Demolition
The proposed development will require demolition of the existing pavements and structures.

Additionally, any existing improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development should be removed in their entirety. This should include all utilities, and any other subsurface improvements associated with the existing pavements. The existing pavements are not expected to be reused with the new development. Any septic systems encountered during demolition and/or grading (if present) should be removed in their entirety. Any associated leach fields or other existing underground improvements should also be removed in their entirety.

Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Concrete and asphalt debris may be re-used as compacted fill, provided they are pulverized to a maximum particle size of less than 2 inches and mixed with the on-site soils. Alternatively, existing asphalt and concrete materials may be crushed into miscellaneous base (CMB) and re-used at the site.

Detailed structural information regarding the existing structures has not been provided to our office. Therefore, the foundation systems supporting the existing structures are generally unknown by SCG. We expect that the existing structures are supported on conventional shallow foundations. However, if any of the structures are supported on deep foundations, any existing piles or drilled piers located within the proposed building area should be cut off at a depth of at least 2 feet below the bottom of the planned overexcavation. Where drilled pier or pile foundations are encountered within proposed pavement areas, they should be cut off at a depth of at least 2 feet below the proposed pavement subgrade or at a depth of at least 1 foot below the bottom of any planned utilities.

Initial site stripping should also include removal of any surficial vegetation from the unpaved areas of the site. This should include any weeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees. Root systems associated with the trees should be removed in their entirety, and the resultant excavations should be backfilled with compacted structural fill soils. Any organic materials should be removed and disposed of off-site, or in non-structural areas of the property. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the materials encountered.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad
Remedial grading should be performed within the proposed building area in order to remove the existing undocumented fill soils, any soils disturbed during demolition, and a portion of the nearsurface native alluvium. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, the existing soils within the proposed building area are recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grades and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations, whichever is greater. The depth of the overexcavation should also extend to a depth sufficient to remove all undocumented fill soils and soils disturbed during demolition.

Within the influence zones of the new foundations, the overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade.

The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building and foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill placed below the foundation bearing grade, 1535
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

whichever is greater. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas.

Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the overexcavation areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structures. This evaluation should include proofrolling and probing to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low-density native soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. It should be noted that Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4, located within the proposed building area, encountered loose soils extending to depths of 6½ to 12± feet.

After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and moisture treated to 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. The subgrade soils should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls and site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Any undocumented fill soils or disturbed native alluvium within any of these foundation areas should be removed in their entirety. The overexcavation areas should extend at least 3 feet beyond the foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. Any erection pads for tilt-up concrete walls are considered to be part of the foundation system. Therefore, these overexcavation recommendations are applicable to erection pads. The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning to within 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.

If the full lateral recommended remedial grading cannot be completed for the proposed retaining walls and site walls located along property lines, the foundations for those walls should be designed using a reduced allowable bearing pressure. Furthermore, the contractor should take necessary precautions to protect the adjacent improvements during rough grading. Specialized grading techniques, such as A-B-C slot cuts, will likely be required during remedial grading. The geotechnical engineer of record should be contacted if additional recommendations, such as shoring design recommendations, are required during grading.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Flatwork, Parking and Drive Areas Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the existing near-surface existing soils in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where lower strength or unstable soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations. 1536
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Any such materials should be removed to a level of firm and unyielding soil. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength surficial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils.

The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed flatwork, parking and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within these areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not mitigate the extent of undocumented fill or compressible/collapsible soils in the flatwork, parking and drive areas. As such, some settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the flatwork, parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill.

Fill Placement
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted. • On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 CBC and the grading code of the city of Ontario. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications.

Imported Structural Fill
All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve).

Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D.

Utility Trench Backfill
In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended).

Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city of Ontario. All utility trench backfills 1537
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere.

Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v (horizontal to vertical) plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches.

Any soils used to backfill voids around subsurface utility structures, such as manholes or vaults, should be placed as compacted structural fill. If it is not practical to place compacted fill in these areas, then such void spaces may be backfilled with lean concrete slurry. Uncompacted pea gravel or sand is not recommended for backfilling these voids since these materials have a potential to settle and thereby cause distress of pavements placed around these subterranean structures.

6.4 Construction Considerations
Excavation Considerations
The near-surface soils generally consist of sands and silty sands. These materials may be subject to moderate caving within shallow excavations. Where caving does occur, flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. On a preliminary basis, the inclination of temporary slopes should not exceed 2h:1v. Deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Maintaining adequate moisture content within the near-surface soils will improve excavation stability. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.

Groundwater
The static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 30± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the grading or foundation construction activities.

6.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be underlain by structural fill soils used to replace existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of the near-surface alluvial soils. These new structural fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade, underlain by 1± foot of additional soil that has been densified and moisture conditioned in place. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundations.

Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows:
• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2. 1538
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 1,500 lbs/ft2if the full recommended lateral extent of remedial grading cannot be achieved, typically for new footings along the property lines.
• Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches. • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom).
• Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab.
• It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer.

The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer.

Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or suitable native alluvium (where reduced bearing pressures are utilized), with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations.

The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process.

Estimated Foundation Settlements
Post-construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. 1539
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slab and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces:
• Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3
• Friction Coefficient: 0.30
These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against compacted structural fill soils. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 3,000 lbs/ft2.

6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support the new floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report.

Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floor of the proposed structure may be constructed as a conventional slab-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill, extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished pad grades. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slab may be designed as follows:
• Minimum slab thickness: 6 inches.
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in.
• Minimum slab reinforcement: Reinforcement is not considered necessary from a geotechnical standpoint. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed slab loading. • Slab underlayment: If moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used then minimum slab underlayment should consist of a moisture vapor barrier constructed below the entire area of the proposed slab where such moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated. The moisture vapor barrier should meet or exceed the Class A rating as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96- 95 and ASTM E 154-88. A polyolefin material such as Stego® Wrap Vapor Barrier or equivalent will meet these specifications. The moisture vapor barrier should be properly constructed in accordance with all applicable manufacturer specifications. Given that a rock free subgrade is anticipated and that a capillary break is not required, sand below the barrier is not required. The need for sand and/or the amount of sand above the moisture vapor barrier should be specified by the structural engineer or concrete contractor. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a geotechnical engineering issue and hence outside our purview. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier may be eliminated.
• Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the 1540
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours prior to concrete placement.
• Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.

The actual design of the floor slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement.

6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction
Although not indicated on the site plans, some small (less than 6 feet in height) retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below.

Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. The following parameters assume that only the on-site soils will be utilized for retaining wall backfill. The near-surface soils generally consist of sands and silty sands. Based on their classification, these materials are expected to possess a friction angle of at least 30 degrees when compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.

If desired, SCG could provide design parameters for an alternative select backfill material behind the retaining walls. The use of select backfill material could result in lower lateral earth pressures.

In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the retaining wall upwards at an angle of approximately 60° from horizontal. If select backfill material behind the retaining wall is desired, SCG should be contacted for supplementary recommendations.

RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Soil Type
On-site Sands and Silty Sands
Internal Friction Angle () 30
Unit Weight 127 lbs/ft3
Equivalent
Fluid Pressure:

Active Condition
(level backfill) 42 lbs/ft3
Active Condition
(2h:1v backfill) 68 lbs/ft3
At-Rest Condition
(level backfill) 64 lbs/ft3
1541
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

The walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 lbs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls.

The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly.

Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure.

Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures
In accordance with the 2019 CBC, any retaining walls more than 6 feet in height must be designed for seismic lateral earth pressures. If walls 6 feet or more are required for this site, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary seismic lateral earth pressure recommendations.

Retaining Wall Foundation Design
The retaining wall foundations should be underlain by at least 3 feet of newly placed structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report.

Backfill Material
On-site soils may be used to backfill the retaining walls. However, all backfill material placed within 3 feet of the back wall face should have a particle size no greater than 3 inches. The retaining wall backfill materials should be well graded.

It is recommended that a minimum 1-foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. In lieu of the 1-foot thick layer of free-draining material, a properly installed prefabricated drainage composite such as the MiraDRAIN 6000XL (or approved equivalent), which is specifically designed for use behind retaining walls, may be used. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical engineer.

All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of 1542
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.

Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either:
• A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 2-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 10-foot on-center spacing. Alternatively, 4-inch diameter holes at an approximate 20-foot on-center spacing can be used for this type of drainage system.

In addition, the weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel, surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location. • A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. The actual design of this type of system should be determined by the civil engineer to verify that the drainage system possesses the adequate capacity and slope for its intended use.

Weep holes or a footing drain will not be required for building stem walls.

6.8 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life.

Pavement Subgrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted existing soils. The near-surface soils generally consist of sands and silty sands. These soils are generally considered to possess good to excellent pavement support characteristics, with R-values in the range of 40 to 60. The subsequent pavement design is therefore based upon an assumed R-value of 40. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading to verify that the pavement design recommendations presented herein are valid. 1543
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

Asphaltic Concrete
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI’s) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI’s are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed the applicable traffic index, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming six operational traffic days per week.

Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day

4.0 0

5.0 1

6.0 3

7.0 11

8.0 35

9.0 93
For the purpose of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor trailer unit with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000 automobiles per day.

ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 40)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 4 6 7 8 10
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the batch plant-reported maximum density. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows:
1544
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R = 40)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic Areas
TI =7.0 TI =8.0 TI =9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. Any reinforcement within the PCC pavements should be determined by the project structural engineer.
1545
Proposed Warehouse– Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-1

7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project.

However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The client(s)’ reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement, incorporated into our proposal for this project.

The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.

This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development.

It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted.

The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.
1546
1547
SITE

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G128-1 PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE GUASTI QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2021. 1548
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 PROPOSED BUILDING 259,189 SF EAST AIRPORT DRIVE N.A.P. N.A.P. N.A.P.

N.A.P.

N.A.P. SCALE: 1" = 80' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT PLATE 2 SCG PROJECT 22G128-1 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BORING LOCATION PLAN SoCalGeo NORTH ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA NOTE: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PREPARED BY RGA. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION PROPERTY LINE 1549
1550

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE
ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

SPT
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH
SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE
VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more.

POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer.

GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.

DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3 .

MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.

PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.

PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 1551
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
1552
106
99 100
106
100
112
2 3
3 2
3 9
4 14
7 2± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Light Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, loose to medium dense-dry to damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, little Silt, trace fine Gravel, loose-damp
Light Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp @ 9 feet, loose
Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, dense-damp to moist
Light Gray Brown to Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, little Silt, medium dense-damp
Browm Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace to little medium Sand, medium dense-moist
Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Silt nodules, dense-damp
Boring Terminated at 30'
23 12
7 18
12 47
21 24
33 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 23 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-1
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
5 10
15 20
25 30

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1553
95 108
108
117
13 10
7 11
4 4
1± inch Aggregate Base
FILL: Light Gray Brown fine Sand, little Silt, trace medium Sand, loose to medium dense-moist
FILL: Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, loose-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-damp
Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse Sand, trace Silt nodules, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-moist
Brown fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, medium dense-damp
Boring Terminated at 20'
No Sample
Recovery
20 8
12 19
26 26
19 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-2
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1554
109
101
96 99
94 105
6 4
10 2
19 13
13 2½± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 3½± inches Aggregate Base FILL: Light Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, little Silt, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
FILL: Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, little Silt, medium dense-damp
@ 5 feet, moist
ALLUVIUM: Gray fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, medium dense-dry to damp
Gray fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, loose-moist to very moist
@ 14 feet, very dense
Gray to dark Gray Silty fine to medium Sand, little coarse Sand, very dense-moist
Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated at 20'
41 18
16 21
11 67/11"
12 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 15.5 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-3
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-3
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1555
114
104
102
101
102
4 8
2 3
5 8
2 2± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 3± inches Aggregate Base FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, loose-damp to moist
Gray Brown fine Sand, little Silt, loose-dry to damp
Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand, medium dense-damp
@ 13½ feet, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, moist @ 18½ feet, dense
Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, trace to little Silt, medium dense-dry to damp
Boring Terminated at 25'
No Sample
Recovery
44 11
14 13
18 10
33 23

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 18 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-4
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-4
5 10
15 20
25 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1556
9 8
7 3
17 3
FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-moist
@ 3½ feet, dense
ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, little Silt, medium dense-damp to moist
@ 9½ feet, little Gravel
Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, little Silt nodules, loose-very moist
Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine Gravel, dense-damp Boring Terminated at 20'
25 40
12 23
9 32

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 16.5 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-5
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-5
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1557
1558
Classification: FILL: Light Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand Boring Number: B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 16
Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.0
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 105.8 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.54
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1559
Classification: Light Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, little Silt Boring Number: B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 15
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.3
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 108.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 2.54
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1560
Classification: Light Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse Sand Boring Number: B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%) 2
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 17
Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.3
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 109.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.39
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 3
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1561
Classification: Light Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse Sand Boring Number: B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 19
Depth (ft) 9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 103.2 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.34
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 4
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1562
Classification: Gray Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace to little Silt Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 8
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 19
Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104.3
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 110.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.51
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1563
Classification: Gray Brown fine Sand, little Silt
Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 2
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 19
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.5
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 106.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.41
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 6
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1564
Classification: Gray Brown fine Sand, little Silt
Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 20
Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 101.5
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 105.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.34
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 7
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1565
Classification: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 5
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 20
Depth (ft) 9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.1
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 106.2 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.51
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C- 8
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
1566
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-1
PLATE C-9
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Dry Density (lbs/ft
3 )
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture/Density Relationship
ASTM D-1557
Soil ID Number B-4 @ 0-5'
Optimum Moisture (%) 10
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 126
Soil
Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand
Zero Air Voids Curve:

Specific Gravity = 2.7
1567
1568
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations.

They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern.

General
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and applicable building codes.
• The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the jobsite to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection.
• Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains.

Site Preparation
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.
• If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately.
1569
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
• Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated.
• Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
• The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing.

Compacted Fills
• Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as “contaminated,” and shall be very low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below.
• All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer.
• Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 12 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. These materials should be placed in accordance with Plate D-8 of these Grading Guide Specifications and in accordance with the following recommendations:
• Rocks 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below subgrade. Spaces should be left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil around the fragments.
• Fill materials consisting of soil meeting the minimum moisture content requirements and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or 1570
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled and compacted to the specified density.
• Subsequent rows of rocks should be placed such that they are not directly above a row placed in the previous lift of fill. A minimum 5-foot offset between rows is recommended.
• To facilitate future trenching, oversized material should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities or other underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and the developer/owner representative. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates D-2, D-4, and D-5. • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate D-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration.
• Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. 1571
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
Foundations
• The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a ½ horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination.
• Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation.

Fill Slopes
• The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core
• Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
• Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate D-5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate D2).

Cut Slopes
• All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations.
• Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
• All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate D-5. 1572
Grading Guide Specifications Page 5
• Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates D-6.

Subdrains
• Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate D-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent.

Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean ¾-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills.
1573
1574

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-2

FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
9' MIN.
4' TYP.

MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED

PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL

BEDROCK OR APPROVED

COMPETENT MATERIAL

CUT SLOPE

NATURAL GRADE

CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE
SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT"

COMPETENT MATERIAL

CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN

ON GRADING PLAN

NEW COMPACTED FILL
10' TYP.

KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS

RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5

FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
1575
1576

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-4

FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL
10' TYP.
4' TYP.
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
OR 2% SLOPE
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

NEW COMPACTED FILL

COMPETENT MATERIAL
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL.

RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT

AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
2' MINIMUM

KEY DEPTH

OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS

PER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN

ON GRADING PLAN

BACKCUT - VARIES

PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL

TO ORIGINAL GRADE

PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT
(1:1 MAX.)
NOTE:

BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED

WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1

OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

FINISHED SLOPE FACE
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
1577

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-5

STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL

FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE

COMPACTED FILL
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
10' TYP.
2' MINIMUM

KEY DEPTH
3' TYPICAL

BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE

TO THE SOIL ENGINEER

KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

TOP WIDTH OF FILL

AS SPECIFIED BY THE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
4' TYP.
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G128-1 PLATE E-1
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS - 2019 CBC

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool
<https://seismicmaps.org/>
1583
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway  Suite E  Yorba Linda  California  92887 voice: (714) 685-1115  fax: (714) 685-1118  www.socalgeo.com March 9, 2022
Prologis
17777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, California 90703
Attention: Mr. John Carter
Director, Project Management
Project No.: 22G128-2
Subject: Results of Infiltration Testing
Proposed Warehouse
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Prologis, SCG Project No. 22G128-1, dated March 9, 2022.

Dear Mr. Carter:

In accordance with your request, we have conducted infiltration testing at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the results of the infiltration testing and our design recommendations.

Scope of Services
The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No. 22P129, dated January 21, 2022. The scope of services included site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field testing, and engineering analysis to determine the infiltration rates of the onsite soils. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section

2.3 of Appendix A, prepared for the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), dated December, 2013. The San Bernardino County standards defer to the guidelines published by the RCDEH.

Site and Project Description
The subject site is located on the north side of East Airport Drive, 1,310± feet east of the intersection of South Wineville Avenue and East Airport Drive in Ontario, California. The site is also referenced by the street address 5355 East Airport Drive. The site is bounded to the north by Union Pacific railroad tracks, to the east and west by an industrial development, and to the south by East Airport Drive. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, enclosed as Plate 1 of this report.

The site consists of an irregular-shaped property, 14.58± acres in size. The site is developed to manufacture and store animal feed grains. The development includes several buildings and shed structures ranging in size from 2,200± ft2to 20,175± ft2, and several silos and above-ground 1584
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

storage tanks (ASTs) primarily located in the north-central region of the site. The existing structures are generally of concrete tilt-up and/or metal-framed construction, and are presumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The existing structures are generally surrounded by asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements, with isolated areas of Portland cement concrete (PCC), aggregate base pavements, and exposed soils in the south-central portion of the site. The existing pavements are in poor condition, with moderate to severe cracking throughout. Two medium-size trees are present in the south-central region of the site.

Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation, the site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent.

Proposed Development
A preliminary site plan, identified as Scheme 01 and prepared by RGA, for the proposed development was provided to our office by the client. Based on this plan, the subject site will be developed with a 259,189± ft² warehouse, located in the north-central region of the site. Dockhigh doors will be constructed along a portion of the south building wall. The proposed building is expected to be surrounded by AC pavements in the parking and drive areas, PCC pavements in the loading dock area, and concrete flatwork and landscaped planters throughout the site.

We understand that the proposed development will include on-site stormwater infiltration. Based on our experience with similar projects in the area, the infiltration systems are expected to be below-grade chambers. The bottoms of the infiltration systems are expected to be 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades.

Concurrent Study
SCG concurrently conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site, referenced above.

As a part of this study, five (5) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-5) were advanced to depths of 20 to 30± feet below the existing site grades.

AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface of Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4. The pavement sections generally consist of 0 to 2½± inches of AC, underlain by 1 to 3½± inches of aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4 and at the ground surface at Boring No. B-5, extending to depths of 2½ to 6½± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense sands and silty sands, with occasional dense silty sands. Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all of the boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 30± feet. The near-surface alluvium generally consists of loose to medium dense sands and sandy silts, extending to depths of 6½ to 12± feet. At greater depths, the alluvium generally consists of medium dense to dense sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Boring No. B-3 encountered a stratum of dense silty sands at a depth of 14½ to 17± feet. Boring No. B5 encountered a stratum of loose well-graded sands at a depth of 12 to 17± feet. 1585
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 30± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

As part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine groundwater levels for the site. Water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record (identified as State Well Number: 01S06W29H001S) is located 3,400± feet southeast of the project site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 277± feet below the ground surface in April 2019.

Subsurface Exploration
Scope of Exploration
The subsurface exploration conducted for the infiltration testing consisted of six (6) infiltration test borings, advanced to depths of 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades. The infiltration borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollowstem augers and were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The approximate locations of the infiltration test borings (identified as I-1 through I-6) are indicated on the Infiltration Test Location Plan, enclosed as Plate 2 of this report.

Upon the completion of the infiltration borings, the bottom of each test boring was covered with 2± inches of clean ¾-inch gravel. A sufficient length of 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing was then placed into each test hole so that the PVC casing extended from the bottom of the test hole to the ground surface. Clean ¾-inch gravel was then installed in the annulus surrounding the PVC casing.

Geotechnical Conditions
AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface of Infiltration Test Nos. I-1 through I-5.

The pavement sections generally consist of 0 to 6± inches of AC, underlain by 0 to 9± inches of aggregate base. An 8±-inch-thick PCC section was encountered at the ground surface at Infiltration Test Nos. I-6. Steel reinforcement was not encountered at this location. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at all of the infiltration boring location, extending to depths of 3 to 4± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands, with occasional loose sands. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils at all of the infiltration boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 12± feet. The alluvium generally consists of loose sands, silty sands and silty sands to sandy silts, with occasional medium dense silty sands. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, are included with this report.
1586
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Infiltration Testing
As previously mentioned, the infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix A, which apply to San Bernardino County.

Pre-soaking
In accordance with the county infiltration standards for sandy soils, all infiltration test borings were pre-soaked 2 hours prior to the infiltration testing or until all of the water had percolated through the test holes. The pre-soaking process consisted of filling test borings by inverting a full 5-gallon bottle of clear water supported over each hole so that the water flow into the hole holds constant at a level at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of each hole.

Pre-soaking was completed after all of the water had percolated through the test holes.

Infiltration Testing
Following the pre-soaking process of the infiltration test borings, SCG performed the infiltration testing. Each test hole was filled with water to a depth of at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of the test holes. In accordance with the Riverside County guidelines, since “sandy soils” (where 6 inches of water infiltrated into the surrounding soils in less than 25 minutes for two consecutive readings) were encountered at the bottom of the infiltration test borings, readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour. After each reading, water was added to the borings so that the depth of the water was at least 5 times the radius of the hole. The water level readings are presented on the spreadsheets enclosed with this report.

The infiltration rates for each of the timed intervals are also tabulated on the spreadsheets.

The infiltration rates from the tests are tabulated in inches per hour. In accordance with the typically accepted practice, it is recommended that the most conservative reading from the latter part of the infiltration tests be used as the design infiltration rate. The rates are summarized below:

Infiltration
Test No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) I-1 10 Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand 3.9
I-2 12 Silty fine to medium Sand 3.0
I-3 12 Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand 4.6 I-4 12 Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand 3.1
I-5 10 Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine
Gravel 3.5
I-6 10 Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel 3.0
1587
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Laboratory Testing
Moisture Content
The moisture contents for the recovered soil samples within the borings were determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216 and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs.

Grain Size Analysis
The grain size distribution of selected soils collected from the base of each infiltration test boring have been determined using a range of wire mesh screens. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-422 and/or ASTM D-1140. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 through C-6 of this report.

Design Recommendations
Six (6) infiltration tests were performed at the subject site. As noted above, the infiltration rates at these locations vary from 3.0 to 4.6 inches per hour. The major factor affecting the difference in infiltration rates at the infiltration test locations is the presence of silt in the soils at the tested depths. Based on the infiltration test results, we recommend an infiltration rate of 3.0 inches per hour be used in the design of the infiltration systems, if the bottom of the infiltration systems extend between 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades.

The design of the storm water infiltration systems should be performed by the project civil engineer, in accordance with the City of Ontario and/or County of San Bernardino guidelines. It is recommended that the system be constructed so as to facilitate removal of silt and clay, or other deleterious materials from any water that may enter the systems. The presence of such materials would decrease the effective infiltration rates. It is recommended that the project civil engineer apply an appropriate factor of safety. The infiltration rates recommended above is based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the infiltration rate. It should be noted that the recommended infiltration rates are based on infiltration testing at six (6) discrete locations and that the overall infiltration rates of the proposed infiltration systems could vary considerably.

Infiltration Rate Considerations
The infiltration rates presented herein was determined in accordance with the San Bernardino County guidelines and are considered valid only for the time and place of the actual test. Varying subsurface conditions will exist in other areas of the site, which could alter the recommended infiltration rates presented above. The infiltration rates will decline over time between maintenance cycles as silt or clay particles accumulate on the BMP surface. The infiltration rate is highly dependent upon a number of factors, including density, silt and clay content, grainsize distribution throughout the range of particle sizes, and particle shape. Small changes in these factors can cause large changes in the infiltration rates. 1588
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Infiltration rates are based on unsaturated flow. As water is introduced into soils by infiltration, the soils become saturated and the wetting front advances from the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone. Once the soils become saturated, infiltration rates become zero, and water can only move through soils by hydraulic conductivity at a rate determined by pressure head and soil permeability. Changes in soil moisture content will affect the infiltration rate. Infiltration rates should be expected to decrease until the soils become saturated. Soil permeability values will then govern groundwater movement. Permeability values may be on the order of 10 to 20 times less than infiltration rates. The system designer should incorporate adequate factors of safety and allow for overflow design into appropriate traditional storm drain systems, which would transport storm water off-site.

Construction Considerations
The infiltration rates presented in this report are specific to the tested locations and tested depths.

Infiltration rates can be significantly reduced if the soils are exposed to excessive disturbance or compaction during construction. Compaction of the soils at the bottom of the infiltration system can significantly reduce the infiltration ability of the basins. Therefore, the subgrade soils within proposed infiltration system areas should not be over-excavated, undercut or compacted in any significant manner. It is recommended that a note to this effect be added to the project plans and/or specifications.

We recommend that a representative from the geotechnical engineer be on-site during the construction of the proposed infiltration systems to identify the soil classification at the base of each system. It should be confirmed that the soils at the base of the proposed infiltration systems correspond with those presented in this report to ensure that the performance of the systems will be consistent with the rates reported herein.

We recommend that scrapers and other rubber-tired heavy equipment not be operated on the basin bottom, or at levels lower than 2 feet above the bottom of the system, particularly within basins. As such, the bottom 24 inches of the infiltration systems should be excavated with nonrubber-tired equipment, such as excavators.

Basin Maintenance
The proposed project may include infiltration basins. Water flowing into these basins will carry some level of sediment. Wind-blown sediments and erosion of the basin side walls will also contribute to sediment deposition at the bottom of the basin. This layer has the potential to significantly reduce the infiltration rate of the basin subgrade soils. Therefore, a formal basin maintenance program should be established to ensure that these silt and clay deposits are removed from the basin on a regular basis. Appropriate vegetation on the basin sidewalls and bottom may reduce erosion and sediment deposition.

Basin maintenance should also include measures to prevent animal burrows, and to repair any burrows or damage caused by such. Animal burrows in the basin sidewalls can significantly increase the risk of erosion and piping failures.
1589
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Location of Infiltration Systems
The use of on-site storm water infiltration systems carries a risk of creating adverse geotechnical conditions. Increasing the moisture content of the soil can cause the soil to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. Overlying structures and pavements in the infiltration area could potentially be damaged due to saturation of the subgrade soils. The proposed infiltration systems for this site should be located at least 25 feet away from any structures, including retaining walls. Even with this provision of locating the infiltration system at least 25 feet from the building(s), it is possible that infiltrating water into the subsurface soils could have an adverse effect on the proposed or existing structures. It should also be noted that utility trenches which happen to collect storm water can also serve as conduits to transmit storm water toward the structure, depending on the slope of the utility trench. Therefore, consideration should also be given to the proposed locations of underground utilities which may pass near the proposed infiltration system.

The infiltration system designer should also give special consideration to the effect that the proposed infiltration systems may have on nearby subterranean structures, open excavations, or descending slopes. In particular, infiltration systems should not be located near the crest of descending slopes, particularly where the slopes are comprised of granular soils. Such systems will require specialized design and analysis to evaluate the potential for slope instability, piping failures and other phenomena that typically apply to earthen dam design. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of this infiltration test report, but these factors should be considered by the infiltration system designer when locating the infiltration systems.

General Comments
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project.

However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The design of the proposed storm water infiltration system is the responsibility of the civil engineer.

The role of the geotechnical engineer is limited to determination of infiltration rate only. By using the design infiltration rate contained herein, the civil engineer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the geotechnical engineer for all aspects of the design and performance of the proposed storm water infiltration system. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur.

The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and testing depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.
1590
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development.

It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.

Closure
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.

Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Joseph Lozano Leon Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655
Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Distribution: (1) Addressee
Enclosures: Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Infiltration Test Location Plan
Boring Log Legend and Logs (8 pages)
Infiltration Test Results Spreadsheets (6 pages)
Grain Size Distribution Graphs (6 pages)
1591
SITE

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G128-2 PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE GUASTI QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2021. 1592
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-1 I-2 PROPOSED BUILDING 259,189 SF EAST AIRPORT DRIVE N.A.P. N.A.P. N.A.P.

N.A.P.

N.A.P. SCALE: 1" = 80' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT PLATE 2 SCG PROJECT 22G128-2 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN SoCalGeo NORTH ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA NOTE: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PREPARED BY RGA. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION FROM CONCURRENT STUDY (SCG PROJECT NO. 22G128-1) PROPERTY LINE 1593

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE
ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

SPT
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH
SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE
VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more.

POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer.

GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.

DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3 .

MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.

PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.

PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 1594
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
1595
10 4
5 8± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Gray Brown Sility fine to coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand, loose-damp @ 8½ feet, little medium Sand
Boring Terminated at 10'
26 7
9 31

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-1
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1596
2 6
7 8
5½± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, dense-dry to damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, loose-damp
Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-damp to moist Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
30 4
6 23 33

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-2
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1597
7 5
5 7
6± inches Asphaltic Concrete
FILL: Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, loose-damp to moist ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, loose-damp Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, loose-damp to moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
8 4
7 6 20

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-3
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-3
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1598
5 7
7 13
3± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 9± inches of Aggregate Base FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, loose, damp to moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, loose-very moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
19 4
9 6 52

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-4
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-4
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1599
8 6
14 9
2½± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 3½± inches of Aggregate Base FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand, loose-damp
Gray Brown to Dark Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, loose-very moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-moist
Boring Terminated at 10'
12 4
9 24

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-5
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-5
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1600
9 9
14 8± inches Portland Cement Concrete
FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-very moist
Boring Terminated at 10'
43 8
6 43

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-6
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-6
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
1601

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-1
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 8:28 AM 8.10
Final 8:53 AM 10.10
Initial 8:55 AM 8.10
Final 9:20 AM 10.10
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:21 AM 8.20
Final 9:31 AM 9.00
Initial 9:31 AM 8.20
Final 9:41 AM 8.90
Initial 9:41 AM 8.20
Final 9:51 AM 8.80
Initial 9:51 AM 8.30
Final 10:01 AM 8.90
Initial 10:01 AM 8.20
Final 10:11 AM 8.80
Initial 10:11 AM 8.20
Final 10:21 AM 8.80
Initial 10:21 AM 8.20
Final 10:31 AM 8.80
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
7 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
6 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
Test Data
4 10.00 0.60 1.60 4.08
5 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
2 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
3 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
1 25.00 24.00 YES
2 Soil Criteria Test

25.00 24.00 YES SANDY SOILS
1 10.00 0.80 1.60 5.43
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Caleb Brackett

SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1602

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.00 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-2
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:07 AM 9.00
Final 7:32 AM 11.00
Initial 7:33 AM 9.00
Final 7:58 AM 10.90
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 7:58 AM 9.00
Final 8:08 AM 9.80
Initial 8:09 AM 9.00
Final 8:19 AM 9.80
Initial 8:20 AM 9.00
Final 8:30 AM 9.70
Initial 8:30 AM 9.00
Final 8:40 AM 9.80
Initial 8:40 AM 9.00
Final 8:50 AM 9.70
Initial 8:50 AM 9.00
Final 9:00 AM 9.70
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Caleb Brackett
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 24.00 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 22.80 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.80 2.60 3.47
2 10.00 0.80 2.60 3.47
3 10.00 0.70 2.65 2.98
4 10.00 0.80 2.60 3.47
5 10.00 0.70 2.65 2.98
6 10.00 0.70 2.65 2.98
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1603

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.40 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-3
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 10:15 AM 10.40
Final 10:40 AM 12.40
Initial 10:42 AM 10.40
Final 11:07 AM 12.40
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 11:08 AM 10.40
Final 11:18 AM 11.20
Initial 11:20 AM 10.40
Final 11:30 AM 11.30
Initial 11:31 AM 10.40
Final 11:41 AM 11.20
Initial 11:42 AM 10.40
Final 11:52 AM 11.20
Initial 11:55 AM 10.40
Final 12:05 PM 11.10
Initial 12:06 PM 10.40
Final 12:16 PM 11.10
Initial 12:18 PM 10.40
Final 12:28 PM 11.10
Initial 12:29 PM 10.40
Final 12:39 PM 11.10
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Sam Bergeland
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 24.00 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 24.00 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.80 1.60 5.43
2 10.00 0.90 1.55 6.29
3 10.00 0.80 1.60 5.43
4 10.00 0.80 1.60 5.43
5 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
6 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
7 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
8 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1604

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.70 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-4
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:56 AM 10.00
Final 8:21 AM 11.70
Initial 8:22 AM 10.00
Final 8:47 AM 11.70
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 8:48 AM 10.30
Final 8:58 AM 10.80
Initial 8:59 AM 10.30
Final 9:09 AM 10.70
Initial 9:10 AM 10.30
Final 9:20 AM 10.60
Initial 9:20 AM 10.30
Final 9:30 AM 10.50
Initial 9:31 AM 10.10
Final 9:41 AM 10.60
Initial 9:42 AM 10.10
Final 9:52 AM 10.50
Initial 9:24 AM 10.10
Final 9:34 AM 10.50
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Sam Bergeland
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 20.40 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 20.40 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.50 1.15 4.56
2 10.00 0.40 1.20 3.51
3 10.00 0.30 1.25 2.54
4 10.00 0.20 1.30 1.64
5 10.00 0.50 1.35 3.96
6 10.00 0.40 1.40 3.06
7 10.00 0.40 1.40 3.06
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1605

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-5
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:42 AM 8.10
Final 8:07 AM 9.80
Initial 8:08 AM 8.10
Final 8:33 AM 9.90
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 8:35 AM 8.30
Final 8:45 AM 9.10
Initial 8:46 AM 8.80
Final 8:56 AM 9.40
Initial 8:57 AM 8.80
Final 9:07 AM 9.30
Initial 9:08 AM 8.80
Final 9:18 AM 9.30
Initial 9:19 AM 8.80
Final 9:29 AM 9.20
Initial 9:30 AM 8.80
Final 9:40 AM 9.20
Initial 9:42 AM 8.80
Final 9:52 AM 9.20
Initial 9:53 AM 8.80
Final 10:03 AM 9.20
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Sam Bergeland
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 20.40 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 21.60 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.80 1.50 5.76
2 10.00 0.60 1.10 5.68
3 10.00 0.50 1.15 4.56
4 10.00 0.50 1.15 4.56
5 10.00 0.40 1.20 3.51
6 10.00 0.40 1.20 3.51
7 10.00 0.40 1.20 3.51
8 10.00 0.40 1.20 3.51
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1606

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-6
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:49 AM 8.10
Final 8:14 AM 9.70
Initial 8:15 AM 8.10
Final 8:40 AM 9.80
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 10:17 AM 8.10
Final 10:27 AM 8.70
Initial 10:28 AM 8.10
Final 10:38 AM 8.80
Initial 10:39 AM 8.10
Final 10:49 AM 8.60
Initial 10:50 AM 8.10
Final 11:00 AM 8.70
Initial 11:05 AM 8.10
Final 11:15 AM 8.60
Initial 11:16 AM 8.10
Final 11:26 AM 8.60
Initial 11:27 AM 8.10
Final 11:37 AM 8.60
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Sam Bergeland
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 19.20 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 20.40 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.60 1.80 3.66
2 10.00 0.70 1.75 4.38
3 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
4 10.00 0.60 1.80 3.66
5 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
6 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
7 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


1607
Sample Description I-1 @ 8½'
Soil Classification Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1608
Sample Description I-2 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Brown Silty fine to medium Sand
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1609
Sample Description I-3 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1610
Sample Description I-4 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1611
Sample Description I-5 @ 9½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine Gravel Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1612
Sample Description I-6 @ 8½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 1613
5355 East Airport Drive

GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CITY OF ONTARIO
PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]
Alyssa Barnett
[email protected]
AUGUST 30, 2022
14539-03 GHG Report
1614
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................I

APPENDICES II
LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS............................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................9 ES.1 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................... 9 ES.2 Project Requirements................................................................................................................... 9 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................12

1.1 Site Location................................................................................................................................ 12

1.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................... 12 2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING......................................................................................................16

2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change (GCC) ............................................................................ 16

2.2 Global Climate Change Defined .................................................................................................. 16

2.3 GHGs ........................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Global Warming Potential........................................................................................................... 23

2.5 GHG Emissions Inventories......................................................................................................... 23

2.6 Effects of Climate Change in California....................................................................................... 24

2.7 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................... 26 3 EXISTING SITE GHG IMPACT.....................................................................................................49 4 PROJECT GHG IMPACT.............................................................................................................51

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 51

4.2 Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................ 51

4.3 Models Employed To Analyze GHGs........................................................................................... 51

4.4 Life-Cycle Analysis Not Required ................................................................................................ 51

4.5 Construction Emissions............................................................................................................... 52

4.6 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 54

4.7 GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations........................................................................ 58 4 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................66 5 CERTIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................71 1615
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
ii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD EXISTING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 4.1: CALEEMOD PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 4.2: CALEEMOD PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP...........................................................................................................13 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN....................................................................................................................14 EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT, 2070-2099 (AS COMPARED WITH 1961-1990).................................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................9 TABLE 2-1: GHGS..............................................................................................................................17 TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS .......................................................23 TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ......................................24 TABLE 3-1: EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................49 TABLE 4-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION.............................................................................................53 TABLE 4-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................53 TABLE 4-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS...........................................................54 TABLE 4-4: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX.............................................................................................56 TABLE 4-5: TRUCK FLEET MIX............................................................................................................57 TABLE 4-6: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS................................................................................................58 TABLE 4-7: 2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY................................................................59 1616
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
% Percent
°C Degrees Celsius
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
(1) Reference
2017 Scoping Plan Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 1493 Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
AB 1881 California Water Conservation Landscaping Act of 2006 Annex I Industrialized Nations
APA Administrative Procedure Act
AQIA 5355 East Airport Drive Air Quality Impact Analysis BAU Business as Usual
C2F6 Hexafluoroethane
C2H6 Ethane
C2H2F4 Tetrafluroethane
C2H4F2 Ethylidene Fluoride
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGAPS California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalSTA California State Transportation Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCAP Community Climate Action Plan
CEC California Energy Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CF4 Tetrafluoromethane
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
1617
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
iv
CFC-113 Trichlorotrifluoroethane
CH4 Methane
City City of Ontario
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CNRA 2009 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Convention United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change COP Conference of the Parties
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CTC California Transportation Commission
DOF Department of Finance
DWR Department of Water Resources
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
FED Functional Equivalent Document
GCC Global Climate Change
Gg Gigagram
GHGA Greenhouse Gas Analysis
GO-Biz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development gpd Gallons Per Day
gpm Gallons Per Minute
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2O Water
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HDT Heavy-Duty Trucks
HFC-23 Fluoroform
HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
HFC-152a 1,1-difluoroethane
HHDT Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks
hp Horsepower
IBANK California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resource Planning
ISO Independent System Operator
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh Kilowatt Hours
1618
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
v
lbs Pounds
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCA Life-Cycle Analysis
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard or Executive Order S-01-07 LDA Light-Duty Auto
LDT1/LDT2 Light-Duty Trucks
LEV III Low-Emission Vehicle
LHDT1/LHDT2 Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks
LULUCF Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
MCY Motorcycles
MD Medium Duty
MDT Medium-Duty Trucks
MDV Medium-Duty Vehicles
MHDT Medium-Heavy-Duty Tucks
MMR Mandatory Reporting Rule
MMTCO2e Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent mpg Miles Per Gallon
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MMTCO2e/yr Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Per Year MT/yr Metric Tons Per Year
MTCO2e Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MTCO2e/yr Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Per Year MW Megawatts
MWh Megawatts Per Hour
MWELO California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NDC Nationally Determined Contributions
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOX Nitrogen Oxides
Non-Annex I Developing Nations
OAL Office of Administrative Law
ONT Ontario International Airport
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PFC Perfluorocarbons
1619
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
vi
ppb Parts Per Billion
ppm Parts Per Million
ppt Parts Per Trillion
Project 5355 East Airport Drive
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
SB Senate Bill
SB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
SB 375 Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies
SB 1078 Renewable Portfolio Standards
SB 1368 Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
Scoping Plan California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
sf Square Feet
SF6 Sulfur Hexaflouride
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
SLPS Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
SP Service Population
SWCRB State Water Resources Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Measures
Title 20 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24 California Building Code
U.N. United Nations
U.S. United States
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change URBEMIS Urban Emissions
UTR Utility Tractors
VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
1620
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
vii
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WRI World Resources Institute
ZE/NZE Zero and Near-Zero Emissions
ZEV Zero-Emissions Vehicles
1621
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank
1622
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this 5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) is summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (1). Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts under CEQA.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
GHG Impact #1: Would the Project generate
GHG emissions either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

4.7 Less Than Significant n/a
GHG Impact #2: Would the Project conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?

4.7 Less Than Significant n/a
ES.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
The Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions. Those that are directly and indirectly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions include:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) (2). • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (Senate Bill [SB] 375) (3).
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles (4). • California Building Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction (5).
• Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20 CCR). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances (6).
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent (%) less by 2020 (7).
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or 1623
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
10 equivalent to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes (8).
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions (9). • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078 – also referred to as RPS). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010 and 33% by 2020 (10).
• California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (SB 32). Requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15 (11).
• SCAQMD Rule 2305. The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, on May 7, 2021. Owners and operators associated with warehouses 100,000 square feet (sf) or larger are required to directly reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities.

Promulgated regulations that would affect the Project’s emissions are accounted for in the Project’s GHG calculations provided in this report. In particular, AB 1493, LCFS, and RPS, and therefore are accounted for in the Project’s emission calculations. 1624
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
11 This page intentionally left blank
1625
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
12 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the GHGA prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive (Project). The purpose of this GHGA is to evaluate Projectrelated construction and operational emissions and determine the level of GHG impacts as a result of constructing and operating the Project.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project is located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is proposed to consist of a single 270,337-square-feet (sf) industrial building. This analysis assumes up to 27,034-sf high-cube cold storage use (10% of the total industrial building sf) and 243,303-sf of warehouse use (90% of total industrial building). The site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-B.
1626
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
13 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
1627
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
14 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
1628
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
15 This page intentionally left blank
1629
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
16 2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (GCC)
GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, Section 4.0 will evaluate the potential for the Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

2.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINED
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

2.3 GHGS

2.3.1 GHGS AND HEALTH EFFECTS
GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, creating a GHG effect that results in global warming and climate change. Many gases demonstrate these properties and as discussed in Table 2-1. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated (see Table 4-1 later in this report) because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects.

Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these 1630
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
17 fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

TABLE 2-1: GHGS
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
Water Water is the most abundant,
important, and variable GHG in
the atmosphere. Water vapor is
not considered a pollutant; in
the atmosphere it maintains a
climate necessary for life.

Changes in its concentration are
primarily considered to be a
result of climate feedbacks
related to the warming of the
atmosphere rather than a direct
result of industrialization.

Climate feedback is an indirect,
or secondary, change, either
positive or negative, that occurs
within the climate system in
response to a forcing
mechanism. The feedback loop
in which water is involved is
critically important to projecting
future climate change.

As the temperature of the
atmosphere rises, more water is
evaporated from ground storage
(rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil).

Because the air is warmer, the
relative humidity can be higher
(in essence, the air is able to
‘hold’ more water when it is
warmer), leading to more water
vapor in the atmosphere. As a
GHG, the higher concentration of
water vapor is then able to
absorb more thermal indirect
energy radiated from the Earth,
thus further warming the
atmosphere. The warmer
atmosphere can then hold more
water vapor and so on and so
on. This is referred to as a
“positive feedback loop.” The
extent to which this positive
feedback loop would continue is
unknown as there are also
dynamics that hold the positive
The main source of
water vapor is
evaporation from
the oceans
(approximately
85%). Other sources
include evaporation
from other water
bodies, sublimation
(change from solid to
gas) from sea ice and
snow, and
transpiration from
plant leaves.

There are no known direct
health effects related to
water vapor at this time. It
should be noted however
that when some pollutants
react with water vapor, the
reaction forms a transport
mechanism for some of
these pollutants to enter the
human body through water
vapor.
1631
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
18 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
feedback loop in check. As an
example, when water vapor
increases in the atmosphere,
more of it would eventually
condense into clouds, which are
more able to reflect incoming
solar radiation (thus allowing
less energy to reach the earth’s
surface and heat it up) (12).

CO2 CO2 is an odorless and colorless
GHG. Since the industrial
revolution began in the mid1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions
has increased dramatically in
scale and distribution. Data from
the past 50 years suggests a
corollary increase in levels and
concentrations. As an example,
prior to the industrial revolution,
CO2 concentrations were fairly
stable at 280 parts per million
(ppm). Today, they are around
370 ppm, an increase of more
than 30%. Left unchecked, the
concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is projected to
increase to a minimum of 540
ppm by 2100 as a direct result of
anthropogenic sources (13).

CO2 is emitted from
natural and
manmade sources.

Natural sources
include: the
decomposition of
dead organic matter;
respiration of
bacteria, plants,
animals, and fungus;
evaporation from
oceans; and volcanic
outgassing.

Anthropogenic
sources include: the
burning of coal, oil,
natural gas, and
wood. CO2 is
naturally removed
from the air by
photosynthesis,
dissolution into
ocean water,
transfer to soils and
ice caps, and
chemical weathering
of carbonate rocks
(14).

Outdoor levels of CO2 are not
high enough to result in
negative health effects.

According to the National
Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH)
high concentrations of CO2
can result in health effects
such as: headaches,
dizziness, restlessness,
difficulty breathing,
sweating, increased heart
rate, increased cardiac
output, increased blood
pressure, coma, asphyxia,
and/or convulsions. It should
be noted that current
concentrations of CO2 in the
earth’s atmosphere are
estimated to be
approximately 370 ppm, the
actual reference exposure
level (level at which adverse
health effects typically
occur) is at exposure levels
of 5,000 ppm averaged over
10 hours in a 40-hour
workweek and short-term
reference exposure levels of
30,000 ppm averaged over a
15-minute period (15).
1632
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
19 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
CH4 CH4 is an extremely effective
absorber of radiation, although
its atmospheric concentration is
less than CO2 and its lifetime in
the atmosphere is brief (10-12
years), compared to other GHGs.

CH4 in the
atmosphere is
generated by many
different sources,
such as fossil fuel
production,
transport and use,
from the decay of
organic matter in
wetlands, and as a
byproduct of
digestion by
ruminant animals
such as cows.

Determining which
specific sources are
responsible for
variations in annual
increases of CH4 is
complex, but
scientists estimate
that fossil fuel
production and use
contributes roughly
30% of the total CH4
emissions. These
industrial sources of
CH4 are relatively
simple to pinpoint
and control using
current technology
(16).

CH4 is extremely reactive
with oxidizers, halogens, and
other halogen-containing
compounds. Exposure to
elevated levels of CH4 can
cause asphyxiation, loss of
consciousness, headache
and dizziness, nausea and
vomiting, weakness, loss of
coordination, and an
increased breathing rate.

N2O N2O, also known as laughing gas,
is a colorless GHG.

Concentrations of N2O also
began to rise at the beginning of
the industrial revolution. In
1998, the global concentration
was 314 parts per billion (ppb).

N2O is produced by
microbial processes
in soil and water,
including those
reactions which
occur in fertilizer
containing nitrogen.

In addition to
agricultural sources,
some industrial
processes (fossil
fuel-fired power
plants, nylon
production, nitric
acid production, and
vehicle emissions)
N2O can cause dizziness,
euphoria, and sometimes
slight hallucinations. In small
doses, it is considered
harmless. However, in some
cases, heavy and extended
use can cause Olney’s
Lesions (brain damage) (17).
1633
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
20 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
also contribute to its
atmospheric load. It
is used as an aerosol
spray propellant, i.e.,
in whipped cream
bottles. It is also
used in potato chip
bags to keep chips
fresh. It is used in
rocket engines and
in race cars. N2O can
be transported into
the stratosphere, be
deposited on the
earth’s surface, and
be converted to
other compounds by
chemical reaction
(17).

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all
hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane
(C2H6) with chlorine and/or
fluorine atoms. CFCs are
nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble and chemically
unreactive in the troposphere
(the level of air at the earth’s
surface).

CFCs have no natural
source. They are
found in aerosol
sprays, blowing
agents for foams and
packing materials, as
solvents, and as
refrigerants. (18).

In confined indoor locations,
working with CFC-113 or
other CFCs is thought to
result in death by cardiac
arrhythmia (heart frequency
too high or too low) or
asphyxiation.

HFCs HFCs are synthetic, man-made
chemicals that are used as a
substitute for CFCs. Out of all the
GHGs, they are one of three
groups with the highest global
warming potential (GWP). The
HFCs with the largest measured
atmospheric abundances are (in
order), Fluoroform (HFC-23),
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC134a), and 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a). Prior to 1990, the
only significant emissions were
of HFC-23. HCF-134a emissions
are increasing due to its use as a
refrigerant.

HFCs are manmade
for applications such
as automobile air
conditioners and
refrigerants.

No health effects are known
to result from exposure to
HFCs.
1634
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
21 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
PFCs PFCs have stable molecular
structures and do not break
down through chemical
processes in the lower
atmosphere. High-energy
ultraviolet rays, which occur
about 60 kilometers above
earth’s surface, are able to
destroy the compounds. Because
of this, PFCs have exceptionally
long lifetimes, between 10,000
and 50,000 years. Two common
PFCs are tetrafluoromethane
(CF4) and hexafluoroethane
(C2F6). The EPA estimates that
concentrations of CF4 in the
atmosphere are over 70 parts
per trillion (ppt).

The two main
sources of PFCs are
primary aluminum
production and
semiconductor
manufacture.

No health effects are known
to result from exposure to
PFCs.

SF6 SF6 is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. It also has
the highest GWP of any gas
evaluated (23,900) (19). The EPA
indicates that concentrations in
the 1990s were about 4 ppt.

SF6 is used for
insulation in electric
power transmission
and distribution
equipment, in the
magnesium industry,
in semiconductor
manufacturing, and
as a tracer gas for
leak detection.

In high concentrations in
confined areas, the gas
presents the hazard of
suffocation because it
displaces the oxygen needed
for breathing.
1635
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
22 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 is a colorless gas with a
distinctly moldy odor. The World
Resources Institute (WRI)
indicates that NF3 has a 100-year
GWP of 17,200 (20).

NF3 is used in
industrial processes
and is produced in
the manufacturing of
semiconductors,
Liquid Crystal Display
(LCD) panels, types
of solar panels, and
chemical lasers.

Long-term or repeated
exposure may affect the liver
and kidneys and may cause
fluorosis (21).

The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as they relate to development projects such as the Project are still being debated in the scientific community.

Their cumulative effects to GCC have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health.

Increases in Earth’s ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat-related deaths. Scientists also purport those higher ambient temperatures would increase disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. Climate change would likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food shortages in some areas (22). Exhibit 2-A presents the potential impacts of global warming (23).

EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT, 2070-2099 (AS COMPARED WITH 1961-1990) Source: Barbara H. Allen-Diaz. “Climate change affects us all.” University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2009. 1636
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
23 2.4 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
GHGs have varying GWP values. GWP of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas cause over a given period of time and represents the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. CO2 is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is a term used for describing the difference GHGs in a common unit. CO2e signifies the amount of CO2 which would have the equivalent GWP.

The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized at Table 2-2. As shown in the table below, GWP for the 2nd Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s scientific and socio-economic assessment on climate change, range from 1 for CO2 to 23,900 for SF6 and GWP for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to 23,500 for SF6 (24).

TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
GWP (100-year time horizon)
2 nd Assessment Report 5th Assessment Report
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12 .4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A. of IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given.

Source: Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007

2.5 GHGEMISSIONS INVENTORIES

2.5.1 GLOBAL
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2018. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,768,440 gigagram (Gg) CO2e 1 (25) (26) as
summarized on Table 2-3.
1 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non-Annex I countries, without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

For countries without 2018 data, the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) data for the most recent year were used U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF,” The most recent GHG emissions for China and India are from 2014 and 2010, respectively. 1637
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
24 2.5.2 UNITED STATES
As noted in Table 2-3, the United States, as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2018.

TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 2 Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China 12,300,200
United States 6,676,650
European Union (28-member countries) 4,232,274
Russian Federation 2,220,123
India 2,100,850
Japan 1,238,343
Total 28,768,440

2.5.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls but is still a substantial contributor to the United States (U.S.) emissions inventory total (27). The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2021 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000- 2019 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 418.2 million metric tons of CO2e per year (MMTCO2e/yr) or 418,200 Gg CO2e (6.26% of the total United States GHG emissions) (28).

2.6 EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA

2.6.1 PUBLIC HEALTH
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35% under the lower warming range to 75 to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. Based on Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California by the California Climate Change Center, large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced (29).

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90F in Los Angeles and 95F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a 2 Used http://unfccc.int data for Annex I countries. Consulted the CAIT Climate Data Explorer in https://www.climatewatchdata.org site to reference Non-Annex I countries of China and India.
1638
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
25 significant increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

2.6.2 WATER RESOURCES
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.

Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90%. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding.

The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta – a major fresh water supply.

2.6.3 AGRICULTURE
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25% of the water supply needed. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks.

Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts. 1639
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
26 In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

2.6.4 FORESTS AND LANDSCAPES
GCC has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks would not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90% due to decreased precipitation.

Moreover, continued GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of GCC.

2.6.5 RISING SEA LEVELS
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches.

2.7 REGULATORY SETTING

2.7.1 INTERNATIONAL
Climate change is a global issue involving GHG emissions from all around the world; therefore, countries such as the ones discussed below have made an effort to reduce GHGs.

IPCC
In 1988, the United Nations (U.N.) and the World Meteorological Organization established the IPCC to assess the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
1640
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
27 UNITED NATION’S FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) On March 21, 1994, the U.S. joined a number of countries around the world in signing the Convention. Under the UNFCCC, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TREATIES
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the UNFCCC. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the fiveyear period 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S.

Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the UN Climate Change Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius(°C) above preindustrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings gradually gained consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.

On September 23, 2014, more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the U.N. At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.

Parties to the UNFCCC reached a landmark agreement on December 12, 2015, in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort. Culminating a four-year negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review. 1641
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
28 The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) 21. Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2°C, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
• Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; • Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review; • Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they would “represent a progression” beyond previous ones; • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; • Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly would not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;” • Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and • Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC (C2ES 2015a) (30).

Following President Biden’s day one executive order, the United States officially rejoined the landmark Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021, positioning the country to once again be part of the global climate solution. Meanwhile, city, state, business, and civic leaders across the country and around the world have been ramping up efforts to drive the clean energy advances needed to meet the goals of the agreement and put the brakes on dangerous climate change.

2.7.2 NATIONAL
Prior to the last decade, there have been no concrete federal regulations of GHGs or major planning for climate change adaptation. The following are actions regarding the federal government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency.

GHGENDANGERMENT
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 497 (2007), decided on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) found that four GHGs, including CO2, are air pollutants subject to regulation under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court held that the EPA Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned 1642
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
29 decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs— CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling that upheld the EPA Administrator’s findings (31).

CLEAN VEHICLES
Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. On April 1, 2010, the EPA, and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the U.S.

The first phase of the national program applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty (MD) passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012–2016). The EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and MD passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.

The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks (HDT) and buses on September 15, 2011, effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year.

For HDT and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10% reduction for gasoline vehicles and a 15% reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12 and 17% respectively if 1643
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
30 accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.

On April 2, 2018, the EPA signed the Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination, which declared that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised (32). This Final Determination serves to initiate a notice to further consider appropriate standards for MY 2022- 2025 light-duty vehicles. On August 2, 2018, the NHTSA in conjunction with the EPA, released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed to amend existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe CO2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks and to establish new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026. As of March 31, 2020, the NHTSA and EPA finalized the SAFE Vehicle Rule which increased stringency of CAFE and CO2 emissions standards by 1.5% each year through model year 2026 (33). On December 21, 2021, after reviewing all the public comments submitted on NHTSA’s April 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA finalizes the CAFE Preemption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the so-called SAFE I Rule. The final rule concludes that the SAFE I Rule overstepped the agency’s legal authority and established overly broad prohibitions that did not account for a variety of important state and local interests. The final rule ensures that the SAFE I Rule will no longer form an improper barrier to states exploring creative solutions to address their local communities’ environmental and public health challenges (34).

On March 31, 2022, NHTSA finalized CAFE standards for MY 2024-2026. The standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2024-2025 were increased at a rate of 8% per year and then increased at a rate of 10% per year for MY 2026 vehicles. NHTSA currently projects that the revised standards would require an industry fleet-wide average of roughly 49 mpg in MY 2026 and would reduce average fuel outlays over the lifetimes of affected vehicles that provide consumers hundreds of dollars in net savings. These standards are directly responsive to the agency’s statutory mandate to improve energy conservation and reduce the nation’s energy dependence on foreign sources (35).

MANDATORY REPORTING OF GHGS
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) or more of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.

NEW SOURCE REVIEW
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that establishes thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 1644
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
31 Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the Federal Code of Regulations, the EPA states:
“This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the CAA, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for GHG emissions until at least April 30, 2016.”
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70% of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources would be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR GHGEMISSIONS FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES: ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERATING UNITS
As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of CO2 for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts (MW) would be required to meet an outputbased standard of 1,000 pounds (lbs) of CO2 per MW-hour (MWh), based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. It should be noted that on February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay of this regulation pending litigation. Additionally, the current EPA Administrator has also signed a measure to repeal the Clean Power Plan, including the CO2 standards. The Clean Power Plan was officially repealed on June 19, 2019, when the EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE). Under ACE, new state-specific emission guidelines were established that provided existing coal-fired electric utility generating units with achievable standards.

On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA’s ACE Rule for GHG emissions from power plants rested on an erroneous interpretation of the CAA that barred EPA from considering measures beyond those that apply at and to an individual source. The court therefore vacated and remanded the ACE Rule and adopted a replacement rule which regulates CO2 emissions from existing power plants, potentially again considering generation shifting and other measures to more aggressively target power sector emissions. 1645
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
32 CAP-AND-TRADE
Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Successful examples in the U.S. include the Acid Rain Program and the N2O Budget Trading Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule in the northeast. There is no federal GHG cap-and-trade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for cap-and-trade.

The Regional GHG Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps CO2 emissions from power plants, auctions CO2 emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008 and in 2020 has retained all participating states.

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners were originally California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, Manitoba and Ontario are not currently participating. California linked with Quebec’s cap-and-trade system January 1, 2014, and joint offset auctions took place in 2015. While the WCI has yet to publish whether it has successfully reached the 2020 emissions goal initiative set in 2007, SB 32 requires that California, a major partner in the WCI, adopt the goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

SMARTWAY PROGRAM
The SmartWay Program is a public‐private initiative between the EPA, large and small trucking companies, rail carriers, logistics companies, commercial manufacturers, retailers, and other federal and state agencies. Its purpose is to improve fuel efficiency and the environmental performance (reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution) of the goods movement supply chains. SmartWay is comprised of four components (36):

1. SmartWay Transport Partnership: A partnership in which freight carriers and shippers commit to benchmark operations, track fuel consumption, and improve performance annually.

2. SmartWay Technology Program: A testing, verification, and designation program to help freight companies identify equipment, technologies, and strategies that save fuel and lower emissions.

3. SmartWay Vehicles: A program that ranks light‐duty cars and small trucks and identifies superior environmental performers with the SmartWay logo.

4. SmartWay International Interests: Guidance and resources for countries seeking to develop freight sustainability programs modeled after SmartWay.

SmartWay effectively refers to requirements geared towards reducing fuel consumption. Most large trucking fleets driving newer vehicles are compliant with SmartWay design requirements.

Moreover, over time, all HDTs would have to comply with the CARB GHG Regulation that is designed with the SmartWay Program in mind, to reduce GHG emissions by making them more fuel‐efficient. For instance, in 2015, 53 foot or longer dry vans or refrigerated trailers equipped 1646
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
33 with a combination of SmartWay-verified low-rolling resistance tires and SmartWay-verified aerodynamic devices would obtain a total of 10% or more fuel savings over traditional trailers.

Through the SmartWay Technology Program, the EPA has evaluated the fuel saving benefits of various devices through grants, cooperative agreements, emissions, and fuel economy testing, demonstration projects and technical literature review. As a result, the EPA has determined the following types of technologies provide fuel saving and/or emission reducing benefits when used properly in their designed applications, and has verified certain products:
• Idle reduction technologies – less idling of the engine when it is not needed would reduce fuel consumption.
• Aerodynamic technologies minimize drag and improve airflow over the entire tractor‐trailer vehicle. Aerodynamic technologies include gap fairings that reduce turbulence between the tractor and trailer, side skirts that minimize wind under the trailer, and rear fairings that reduce turbulence and pressure drop at the rear of the trailer. • Low rolling resistance tires can roll longer without slowing down, thereby reducing the amount of fuel used. Rolling resistance (or rolling friction or rolling drag) is the force resisting the motion when a tire rolls on a surface. The wheel would eventually slow down because of this resistance.
• Retrofit technologies include things such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades (to a higher tier), etc., which would reduce emissions.
• Federal excise tax exemptions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13990
On January 20, 2021, Federal agencies were directed to immediately review, and take action to address, Federal regulations promulgated and other actions taken during the last 4 years that conflict with national objectives to improve public health and the environment; ensure access to clean air and water; limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; reduce GHG emissions; bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and prioritize both environmental justice and employment.

2.7.3 CALIFORNIA

2.7.3.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS TO REDUCE GHGS
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
1647
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
34 AB 1881
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

SB 1368
California SB 1368 adds Sections 8340 and 8341 to the Public Utilities Code (effective January 1, 2007) with the intent “to prevent long-term investments in power plants with GHG emissions in excess of those produced by a combined-cycle natural gas power plant” with the aim of “reducing emissions of GHGs from the state’s electricity consumption, not just the state’s electricity production.” SB 1368 provides a mechanism for reducing the GHG emissions of electricity providers, both in-state and out-of-state, thereby assisting CARB in meeting its mandate under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

AB 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which required that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (this goal has been met3). GHGs as defined under AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, NF3, has also been added to the list of GHGs. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
SB 375
On September 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40% of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California would not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: it (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include sustainable community strategies in their 3 Based upon the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2017 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 424.1 MMTCO2e (29). This is less than the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e. 1648
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
35 regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that guides growth while taking into account the transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs of the region. SB 375 uses CEQA streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects, which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GHG emissions. Although SB 375 does not prevent CARB from adopting additional regulations, such actions are not anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that CEQA findings for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts, or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network, if the project:

1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that CARB accepts as achieving the GHG emission reduction targets.

2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies).

3. Incorporates the MMs required by an applicable prior environmental document.

AB 1493 - Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program (LEV III) or the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program. The ACC program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for MY 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34% from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid EV and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. On March 9, EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards for cars and light trucks, which other states can also adopt and enforce. With this authority restored, EPA will continue partnering with states to advance the next generation of clean vehicle technologies.

CLEAN ENERGY AND POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 (SB 350) In October 2015, the legislature approved, and Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change.

Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for EV charging stations. Provisions for a 50% reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from the Bill because of opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
1649
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
36 • Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target would be achieved through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which would facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

SB 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature (11).

CARB SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
In November 2017, CARB released the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan), which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB

32. Key programs that the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the LCFS, and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from agricultural and other wastes.

The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40% decrease in 1990 levels by 2030 (37).

California’s climate strategy would require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land base, and would include enhanced focus on zero and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (CH4, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries would further support air quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California’s local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks. 1650
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
37 • LCFS, with an increased stringency (18% by 2030).
• Implementing SB 350, which expands the RPS to 50% RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. • Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing CH4 and HCF emissions by 40% and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50% by year 2030.
• Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. • 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030. • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Note, however, that the 2017 Scoping Plan acknowledges that:
“[a]chieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.”
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies local governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identifies local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends that local governments achieve a community-wide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies may develop evidence-based bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate onsite design features and MMs that avoid or minimize project emissions to the degree feasible; or a performance-based metric using a CAP or other plan to reduce GHG emissions is appropriate.

According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and supported by CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies, could achieve the 2030 goals under SB 32. The research utilized a new, validated model known as the California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet (CALGAPS), which simulates GHG and criteria pollutant emissions in California from 2010 to 2050 in accordance to existing and future GHG-reducing policies. The CALGAPS model showed that by 2030, emissions could range from 211 to 428 MTCO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr), indicating that “even if all modeled policies are not implemented, reductions could be sufficient to reduce emissions 40% below the 1990 level [of SB 32].” CALGAPS analyzed emissions through 2050 even though it did not generally account for policies that might be put in place after 2030. Although the research indicated that the emissions 1651
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
38 would not meet the State’s 80% reduction goal by 2050, various combinations of policies could allow California’s cumulative emissions to remain very low through 2050 (38) (39).

CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM
The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade Program as one of the key strategies for California to reduce GHG emissions. According to CARB, a cap-and-trade program would help put California on the path to meet its goal of achieving a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors is established, and facilities subject to the cap would be able to trade permits to emit GHGs within the overall limit.

CARB adopted a California Cap-and-Trade Program pursuant to its authority under AB 32. The Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from regulated entities by more than 16% between 2013 and 2020, and by an additional 40% by 2030. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped sectors (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, and cement production) commenced in 2013 and would decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration.

Covered entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e/yr must comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program. Triggering of the 25,000 MTCO2e/yr “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions reported and verified under the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions (Mandatory Reporting Rule or “MRR”).

Under the Cap-and-Trade Program, CARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of allowable emissions over a given compliance period and distributes these to regulated entities.

Covered entities are allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each covered entity with a compliance obligation is required to surrender “compliance instruments” for each MTCO2e of GHG they emit. There also are requirements to surrender compliance instruments covering 30% of the prior year’s compliance obligation by November of each year (40).

The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, which provides the highest certainty of achieving the 2030 target. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by CARB in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
“The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities.

Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions 1652
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
39 is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.” (41) The Cap-and-Trade Program covers approximately 80% of California’s GHG emissions (37). The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of transportation fuels in California, whether refined in-state or imported.

2.7.3.2 EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATED TO GHGEMISSIONS
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the state and guide the actions of state agencies.

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that would stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-01-07 (LCFS)
Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

After a series of legal changes, in order to address the Court ruling, CARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon intensity fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. On November 16, 2015, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Final Rulemaking Package. The new LCFS regulation became effective on January 1, 2016.
1653
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
40 In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in compliance with the SB 32 GHG emissions reduction target for 2030. The amendments included crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector (42).

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the Order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2009) was adopted, which is the “…first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying, and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligned California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Order sets a new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs CARB to update the 2017 Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The Order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years, and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions.

As with Executive Order S-3-05, this Order is not legally enforceable as to local governments and the private sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post 2020 targets and requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18 AND SB 100
SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018.

Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales of electricity are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B-55- 18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural 1654
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
41 Resources Agency (CNRA), California EPA (CalEPA), the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

2.7.3.3 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODES
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

TITLE 20 CCR SECTIONS 1601 ET SEQ. – APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS The Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulate the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and nonfederally regulated appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles (RV) or other mobile equipment (CEC 2012).

TITLE 24 CCR PART 6 – CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods.

TITLE 24 CCR PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

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

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that will be effective on January 1, 2023. The CEC anticipates that the 2022 energy code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce GHG emissions by 10 million metric tons (43). The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. These require, among other items (44):
1655
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
42 NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2). • Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles asshown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2). • EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). Additionally, Table 5.106.5.4.1 specifies requirements for the installation of raceway conduit and panel power requirements for medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle supply equipment for warehouses, grocery stores, and retail stores.
• Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight, uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8). • Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section

5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1). • Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reuse or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas thatserve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1).
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed

1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed

0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2). 1656
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
43 o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combine flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2). o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5). • Outdoor potable water uses in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1).
• Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (GPD) (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2).
• Outdoor water uses in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf.

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

CARB REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal.

The regulation is set forth in sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, CCR. The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of high-GWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce emissions from the installation and servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions.

TRACTOR‐TRAILER GHG REGULATION
The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53‐foot or longer box‐type trailers, including both dry‐ van and refrigerated‐van trailers, and owners of the HD tractors that pull them on California highways. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with 1657
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
44 compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors MY 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. There are also requirements for trailers to have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.

PHASE I AND 2 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GHGSTANDARDS
In September 2011, CARB has adopted a regulation for GHG emissions from HDTs and engines sold in California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers and harmonizes with the EPA rule for new trucks and engines nationally. Existing HD vehicle regulations in California include engine criteria emission standards, tractor-trailer GHG requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e., the Heavy-Duty Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation), and in-use fleet retrofit requirements such as the Truck and Bus Regulation. The EPA rule has compliance requirements for new compression and spark ignition engines, as well as trucks from Class 2b through Class 8. Compliance requirements began with MY 2014 with stringency levels increasing through MY 2018. The rule organizes truck compliance into three groupings, which include a) HD pickups and vans; b) vocational vehicles; and c) combination tractors. The EPA rule does not regulate trailers.

CARB staff has worked jointly with the EPA and the NHTSA on the next phase of federal GHG emission standards for medium-duty trucks (MDT) and HDT vehicles, called federal Phase 2. The federal Phase 2 standards were built on the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency required by the Phase 1 emission standards and represent a significant opportunity to achieve further GHG reductions for 2018 and later MY HDT vehicles, including trailers. The EPA and NHTSA have proposed to roll back GHG and fuel economy standards for cars and light-duty trucks, which suggests a similar rollback of Phase 2 standards for MDT and HDT vehicles may be pursued.

SB 97 AND THE CEQAGUIDELINES UPDATE
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the OPR pursuant to subdivision (a).”
In 2012, Public Resources Code Section 21083.05 was amended to state:
“The Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency shall periodically update the guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption, to incorporate new information or criteria established by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code.”
1658
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
45 On December 28, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency announced the OAL approved the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for implementing CEQA. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change.

Section 15064.4 was added the CEQA Guidelines and states that in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change.

A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively insignificant compared to statewide, national, or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.

Additionally, a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use (45).

2.7.4 REGIONAL
The project is within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.

SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, which could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
1659
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
46 • Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan.

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

The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.

SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the project would include stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD would fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties. 1660
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
47 CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CCAP) The Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) contains further guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The purpose of the CCAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Ontario (46). The CCAP builds upon the Reduction Plan to address City-specific information and City-specific GHG reduction measures. To address the state’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the CCAP was prepared with the goal of reducing GHG emissions within the City by 15% below 2008 levels by the year 2020. The City’s target is consistent with the AB 32 target and ensures that the City of Ontario achieves GHG reductions locally that complement and are consistent with state efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

As part of the CCAP, the City of Ontario published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014). As part of this guidance, the CCAP determined that if GHG emissions of a given project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, then project emissions would need to be reduced by 25 percent when compared to year 2008 emissions levels. Alternatively, the project would need to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the Screening Tables.

The 2022 update to the Ontario Plan includes an update to the City’s CCAP which was originally adopted on December 16, 2014. As stated in The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, it is appropriate for the proposed Project to rely on the CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables that were adopted under the 2014 CCAP, since the 2022 update to the CCAP does not contain measures that would be substantially different than the 2014 CCAP (47).
1661
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
48 This page intentionally left blank
1662
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
49 3 EXISTING SITE GHG IMPACT
The Project site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. GHG emissions from the existing development are summarized on Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1: EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Mobile Source 1,130.00 0.10 0.15 1.47 1,177.00
Area Source 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87
Energy Source 247.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 248.00
Water Usage 13.50 0.32 0.01 0.00 23.60
Waste 3.50 0.35 0.00 0.00 12.30
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 184.00 184.00
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,645.77
Source: CalEEMod output, See Appendix 3.1 for detailed model outputs. 1663
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
50 This page intentionally left blank
1664
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
51 4 PROJECT GHG IMPACT

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it would result in a significant GHG impact. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following sections.

4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related GHG impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG if it would (1):
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

4.2.1 DISCUSSION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS As previously stated, SEIR identifies that the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, and consistent with the 2014 CCAP, this analysis relies on the annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis. Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation.

4.3 MODELS EMPLOYED TO ANALYZE GHGS

4.3.1 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR MODEL (CALEEMOD)
In May 2022 the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operationalsource criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (48). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine GHG emissions.

Output from the model runs for construction and operational activity are provided in Appendices

4.1 through 4.2. CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories:
construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water.

4.4 LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS NOT REQUIRED
A full life‐cycle analysis (LCA) for construction and operational activity is not included in this analysis due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time (49). Life‐cycle 1665
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
52 analysis (i.e., assessing economy‐wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the Project development, infrastructure, and on-going operations) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all processes. At this time, a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared.

Additionally, the SCAQMD recommends analyzing direct and indirect project GHG emissions generated within California and not life-cycle emissions because the life-cycle effects from a project could occur outside of California, might not be very well understood, or documented, and would be challenging to mitigate (50). Additionally, the science to calculate life cycle emissions is not yet established or well defined; therefore, SCAQMD has not recommended, and is not requiring, life-cycle emissions analysis.

4.5 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project construction actvities would generate CO2 and CH4 emissions The IE Distribution Center #14 Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) report contains detailed information regarding Project construction activities (51). As discussed in the AQIA, Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Demolition/Crushing
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating/Landscaping

4.5.1 CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence in May 2023 and would last through April 2024. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table 4-1, represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent4. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (52). 4 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.
1666
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
53 TABLE 4-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Demolition/Crushing 05/02/2023 07/24/2023 60
Site Preparation 07/25/2023 09/04/2023 30
Grading 07/25/2023 09/04/2023 30
Building Construction 09/05/2023 04/15/2024 160
Paving 02/13/2024 04/15/2024 45
Architectural Coating/Landscaping 03/05/2024 04/15/2024 30

4.5.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
A summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided at Table 4-4. In accordance the City of Ontario General Plan Update, this analysis assumed the use of CARB Tier 4 Interim equipment during Project construction.

TABLE 4-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Demolition/Crushing
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Excavators 3 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment1 1 8
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Grading
Graders 1 8
Excavators 2 8
Scrapers 2 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Crawler Tractors 2 8
Building Construction
Forklifts 5 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Cranes 2 8
Welders 2 8
Crawler Tractors 5 8
Pavers
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
1 The Project will use an electric-powered crusher which will be powered by a diesel generator. As a conservative measure, this analysis models a single diesel-powered generator set.
1667
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
54 4.5.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions (53). As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The amortized construction emissions are presented in Table 4-3.

TABLE 4-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
5 2023 616.94 0.01 0.01 0.24 624.02
2024 295.91 0.01 0.00 0.15 299.13
Total GHG Emissions 912.85 0.02 0.01 0.39 923.15
Amortized Construction Emissions 30.43 6.67E-04 3.33E-04 0.01 30.77 Source: CalEEMod annual construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 4.1.

A CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.

4.6 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRU) Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
• Solid Waste

4.6.1 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the 5 CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.
1668
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
55 landscaping of the Project. It should be noted that as October 9, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1346. The bill aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered equipment under 25 gross horsepower (known as small off-road engines [SOREs]) by 2024. For purposes of analysis, the emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod.

4.6.2 ENERGY SOURCE EMISSIONS

COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building; the building energy use emissions do not include street lighting6. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Natural gas and electricity usage associated with the Project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.

4.6.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The Project related operational GHG emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project, including employee trips to and from the site and truck trips associated with the proposed uses. It should be noted that CalEEMod has different trip rates for different days of the week. In order to accurately determine mobile-source emission from vehicle activity generated by the proposed Project, the CalEEMod default trip rates were adjusted for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday utilizing the trip rates based on trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) (54). The following trip generation rates and vehicle mix were utilized for calculating the trip generation for the proposed Project:
• High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE land use code 157) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for the 27,034-sf building of the proposed Project. High-cube warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The HighCube Cold Storage Warehouse vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 36.4%; 3-Axle = 9.09%; 4+-Axle =

54.6%.
• ITE Land Use Code 150 has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for the 243,303-sf building of the proposed Project. The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual Supplement (dated February 2020). The truck percentages were further 6 The CalEEMod emissions inventory model does not include indirect emission related to street lighting. Indirect emissions related to street lighting are expected to be negligible and cannot be accurately quantified at this time as there is insufficient information as to the number and type of street lighting that would occur.
1669
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
56 broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.4%; 3- Axle = 20.6%; 4+-Axle = 63.0%.

APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT
In order to determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, CalEEMod defaults for trip length and trip purpose were utilized. Default vehicle trip lengths for primary trips will be populated using data from the local metropolitan planning organizations/Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (MPO/RTPA). Trip type percentages and trip lengths provided by MPO/RTPAs truncate data at their demonstrative borders. This analysis assumes that passenger cars include LightDuty-Auto vehicles (LDA), Light-Duty-Trucks (LDT17 & LDT28 ), Medium-Duty-Vehicles (MDV), and
Motorcycles (MCY) vehicle types. In order to account for emissions generated by passenger cars, the fleet mix in Table 4-4 was utilized.

TABLE 4-4: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX
Land Use
% Vehicle Type
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV MCY
High-Cube Cold Storage

56.23% 4.67% 22.39% 14.70% 2.01%
Warehouse
Note: The Project-specific passenger car fleet mix used in this analysis is based on a proportional split utilizing the default CalEEMod percentages assigned to LDA, LDT1, LDT2, and MDV vehicle types.

To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2), 14.2 miles for 3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages. The trip length function for the general light industrial use has been revised to 30.58 miles and 28.62 miles for the high-cube cold storage and warehouse uses, respectively, an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed industrial land uses.

Trucks are broken down by truck type. The truck fleet mix is estimated by rationing the trip rates for each truck type based on information provided by the SCAQMD recommended truck mix, by axle type. Heavy trucks are broken down by truck type (or axle type) and are categorized as either Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks (LHDT19 & LHDT2 10)/2-axle, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks (MHDT)/3- axle, and Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT)/4+-axle. To account for emissions generated by trucks, the fleet mix in Table 4-5 was utilized.
7 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
8 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs. 9 Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs. 10 Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. 1670
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
57 TABLE 4-5: TRUCK FLEET MIX
Land Use
% Vehicle Type
LHDT1 LHDT2 MHDT HHDT
High-Cube Cold Storage 12.94% 3.49% 20.55% 63.01%
Warehouse 28.64% 7.73% 9.09% 54.55%
Note: Project-specific truck fleet mix is based on the number of trips generated by each truck type (LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, and HHDT) relative to the total number of truck trips.

4.6.4 TRUEMISSIONS
In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the cold-storage land use are assumed to also have TRUs. Therefore, for modeling purposes 11 trucks have the potential to include TRUs. TRUs are accounted for during on-site and off-site travel. The TRU calculations are based on EMissions FACtor Model version 2021 (EMFAC2021), developed by the CARB. EMFAC2021 does not provide emission rates per hour or mile as with the on-road emission model and only provides emission inventories. Emission results are produced in tons per day while all activity, fuel consumption and horsepower hours were reported at annual levels. The emission inventory is based on specific assumptions including the average horsepower rating of specific types of equipment and the hours of operation annually. These assumptions are not always consistent with assumptions used in the modeling of project level emissions. Therefore, the emissions inventory was converted into emission rates to accurately calculate emissions from TRU operation associated with project level details. This was accomplished by converting the annual horsepower hours to daily operational characteristics and converting the daily emission levels into hourly emission rates based on the total emission of each criteria pollutant by equipment type and the average daily hours of operation.

4.6.5 ON-SITE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas. For this particular Project, on-site modeled operational equipment includes up to one (1) 175 horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo handling equipment – port tractor operating at 4 hours a day11 for 365 days of the year.

4.6.6 WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod default parameters were used. 11 Based on Table II-3, Port and Rail Cargo Handling Equipment Demographics by Type, from CARB’s Technology Assessment: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment document, a single piece of equipment could operate up to 2 hours per day (Total Average Annual Activity divided by Total Number Pieces of Equipment). As such, the analysis conservatively assumes that the tractor/loader/backhoe would operate up to 4 hours per day.
1671
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
58 4.6.7 SOLID WASTE
Industrial land uses would result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A percentage of this waste would be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted would be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed Project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.

4.6.8 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated Project-related GHG emissions are summarized on Table 4-6. It should be noted that the existing development emissions were subtracted from the Project GHG emissions to determine the new emissions from the proposed Project. Detailed operation model outputs for the Project are presented in Appendix 4.2. As shown in Table 4-6, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of 2,590.77 MTCO2e/yr.

TABLE 4-6: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 30.43 6.67E-04 3.33E-04 0.01 30.77 Mobile Source 1,536.00 0.11 0.18 2.15 1,596.00
Area Source 5.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.64
Energy Source 847.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 850.00
Water Usage 88.10 2.04 0.05 0.00 154.00
Waste 22.70 2.27 0.00 0.00 79.30
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,078.00 1,078.00
TRU Source 156.68
On-Site Equipment 286.15
Total CO2e (All Sources) 4,236.54
Existing 1,645.77
Total Net CO2e (All Sources) 2,590.77
Source: CalEEMod output, See Appendix 4.2 for detailed model outputs.

4.7 GHGEMISSIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.7.1 GHGIMPACT 1
Would the Project generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1672
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
59 As discussed within the CCAP, projects that generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr would have a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact. As shown, the proposed Project would generate a total of 2,590.77 MTCO2e/yr and would therefore not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr significance threshold.

The Project would not have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.

4.7.2 GHGIMPACT 2
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
As previously stated, pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (45). As such, the Project’s consistency with the City’s CCAP, AB 32 and SB 32 are discussed below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2017 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32. Consistency with the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target year for the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project’s buildout year is 2024.

As such the 2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S CCAP
Since the Project does not exceed the established annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project is considered less than significant, does not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis, and is presumed to be consistent with the City’s CCAP.

SB 32/2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Table 4-7 summarizes the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. As summarized, the Project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories.

TABLE 4-7: 2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY12
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio
Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and
ensure grid reliability.

CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would use energy
from Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE
has committed to diversify its portfolio of
energy sources by increasing energy from
wind and solar sources. The Project
would not interfere with or obstruct SCE
energy source diversification efforts.
12Measures can be found at the following link: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 1673
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
60 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a cumulative
doubling of statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and natural gas end
uses by 2030.

Consistent. The proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures, where applicable by including
several measures designed to reduce
energy consumption. The proposed
Project would include energy efficient
lighting and fixtures that meet the
applicable Title 24 Standards throughout
the Project Site and would be a modern
development with energy efficient boilers,
heaters, and air conditioning systems.

Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity
sector through the implementation of the
above measures and other actions as
modeled in Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the IRP process. Loadserving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets through a combination of
measures as described in IRPs.

Consistent. The proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures, where applicable by including
several measures designed to reduce
energy consumption. The proposed
Project would include energy efficient
lighting and fixtures that meet the
applicable Title 24 Standards throughout
the Project Site and would be a modern
development with energy efficient boilers,
heaters, and air conditioning systems.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plugin hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025.

CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets.

As this is a CARB enforced standard,
vehicles that access the Project are
required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.

At least 4.2 million zero emission and plugin hybrid light-duty EVs by 2030.

Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets.

As this is a CARB enforced standard,
vehicles that access the Project are
required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.

Further increase GHG stringency on all
light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.

Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB efforts to further
increase GHG stringency on all light-duty
vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean
cars regulations. As this is a CARB
enforced standard, vehicles that access
1674
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
61 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
the Project are required to comply with
the standards and will therefore comply
with the strategy.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2.

Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB efforts to
implement Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2. As this is a CARB enforced
standard, vehicles that access the Project
are required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.

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

Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to transition to a suite of to-bedetermined innovative clean transit options.

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

Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to use low NOX or cleaner engines or the
deployment of increasing numbers of
zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7
last mile delivery trucks in California.

Further reduce VMT through continued
implementation of SB 375 and regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies;
forthcoming statewide implementation of
SB 743; and potential additional VMT
reduction strategies not specified in the
Mobile Source Strategy but included in the
document “Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. This Project would not
obstruct or interfere with implementation
of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict
with this measure.

Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets). CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
1675
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
62 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g. via guideline
documents, funding programs, project
selection, etc.).

CalSTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor’s Office of
Business and
Economic
Development (GOBiz),
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank),
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission (CTC),
Caltrans
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with agency efforts to
harmonize transportation facility project
performance with emissions reductions
and increase competitiveness of transit
and active transportation modes.

Develop pricing policies to support lowGHG transportation (e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user,
parking pricing, transit discounts).

CalSTA,
Caltrans,
CTC,
OPR,
SGC,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to develop pricing policies to support lowGHG transportation.

Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.

CalSTA,
CalEPA,
CNRA,
CARB,
Caltrans,
CEC,
GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply to
all trucks accessing the Project site, this
may include existing trucks or new trucks
that are part of the statewide goods
movement sector. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to Improve freight system efficiency.

Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and
equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.

Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.

Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a
Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%.

CARB
Consistent. When adopted, this measure
would apply to all fuel purchased and
used by the Project in the state. The
Project would not obstruct or interfere
1676
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
63 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
with agency efforts to adopt a Low Carbon
Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity
reduction of 18%.

Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030 40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013
levels.

CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
California State
Water Resource
Control Board
(SWRCB),
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The Project would be required
to comply with any applicable measures
that may be adopted for the purposes of
reducing SLPS emissions. The Project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to reduce SLPS emissions since it
would be required to comply with any
applicable regulatory measures.
50% reduction in black carbon emissions
below 2013 levels.

Develop regulations and programs to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The Project would implement
waste reduction and recycling measures
consistent with State and City of Ontario
requirements. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps. CARB
Consistent. The Project would be required
to comply with any applicable Cap-andTrade Program provisions. The Project would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to implement the post-2020 Capand-Trade Program.

By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.

CNRA,
Departments
Within
CDFA,
CalEPA,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives. The Project site is not targeted
for conservation in any local or State
conservation plan.

Increase the long-term resilience of carbon
storage in the land base and enhance
sequestration capacity
Consistent. The Project site is currently
developed and does not comprise an area
that would effectively provide for carbon
sequestration. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.

Consistent. The Project is proposed as a
tilt-up industrial manufacturing and
warehouse use with building materials
1677
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
64 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Utilize wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in
the natural and built environments
primarily comprised of concrete.

However, where appropriate, the Project
design does not preclude the
incorporation of wood or wood products.

The Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to encourage use
of wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in
the natural and built environments.

Establish scenario projections to serve as
the foundation for the Implementation
Plan
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish scenario projections to serve as
the foundation for the Implementation
Plan.

Establish a carbon accounting framework
for natural and working lands as described
in SB 859
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working lands
as described in SB 859.

Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA,
California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments Within
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
implement the Forest Carbon Plan.

Identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.

State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.

As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (55).

The Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 1678
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
65 This page intentionally left blank
1679
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
66 4 REFERENCES

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

2. Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. [Online] 2006. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006.

3. —. Sustainable Communities. [Online] 2008. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainablecommunities-climate-protection-program/about.

4. —. Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. [Online] September 24, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.

5. Building Standards Commission. California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). [Online] http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.

6. California Energy Commission. California Code of Regulations, TITLE 20, Division 2. [Online] September 3, 2013. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 07/Title%2020%20Updated%20July%2023%2C%202021.pdf.

7. Air Resources Board. Title 17 - California Code of Regulation. [Online] 2010. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/basics-notes.pdf.

8. Department of Water Resources. Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB 1881. [Online] 2006. [Cited: November 13, 2013.] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance.

9. California Energy Commission. SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards. [Online] September 29, 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/.

10. —. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). [Online] 2002. http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/.

11. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32.

12. National Environmental Education Foundation. The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.

National Environmental Education Foundation. [Online] https://www.neefusa.org/weather-andclimate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases-and-their-sources#WaterVapor.

13. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report. International Panel on Climate Change. 4, 2007.

14. The Carbon Cycle and Climate Change. Bennington, Bret J. 1, s.l. : Brooks/Cole. ISBN 1 3: 978-0-495- 73855-8.

15. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Carbon Dioxide. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Online] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html.

16. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Increase in atmospheric methane set another record during 2021. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Online] https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during2021#:~:text=NOAA's%20preliminary%20analysis%20showed%20the,during%202020%20was%2015 .3%20ppb..

17. World Resources Institute. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT). [Online] http://cait.wri.org.

18. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CFCs and their substitutes in stratospheric ozone depletion. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Online] https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/about/cfc.html.
1680
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
67 19. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation for Reducting Sulfur Hexafluoride Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear. Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] May 7, 2014. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/mehl-arb-presentation-2014- wkshp.pdf.

20. World Resources Institute. Nitrogen Trifluoride Now Required in GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. [Online] May 22, 2013. https://www.wri.org/blog/2013/05/nitrogentrifluoride-now-required-ghg-protocol-greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventories.

21. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nitrogen Trifluoride. PubChem Compound Database. [Online] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/24553 .

22. American Lung Association. Climate Change. [Online] http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthyair/outdoor/climate-change/.

23. Barbara H. Allen-Diaz. Climate change affects us all. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. [Online] April 1, 2009. http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v063n02p51.

24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. [Online] September 2013. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf.

25. United Nations. GHG Profiles - Annex I. [Online] http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_annex1.

26. —. GHG Profiles - Non-Annex I. [Online] http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1.

27. World Resources Institute. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT). [Online] http://cait.wri.org.

28. Air Resources Board. 2019 GHG Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000-2017 Edition. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

29. California Energy Commission. Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California. 2006.

30. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). [Online] 2015. http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary.

31. Agency, United States Environmental Protection. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] 2020. https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-causeor-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a.

32. Federal Register. Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. [Online] 2018.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/13/2018-07364/mid-term-evaluation-ofgreenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-for-model-year-2022-2025-light-duty.

33. Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety. SAFE: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 'SAFE' Vehicle Rule. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [Online] 2020. https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe.

34. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. [Online] https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.

35. Department of Transportation. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024- 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. [Online] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022- 04/Final-Rule-Preamble_CAFE-MY-2024-2026.pdf.
1681
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
68 36. United States Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay. [Online] 2017. https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway.

37. California Air Resources Board. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan . [Online] 2017. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017_es.pdf.

38. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. California's Policies Can Significantly Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions through 2030. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Online] January 22, 2015. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californias-policies-can-significantly-cut-greenhouse-gasemissions-2030/.

39. Science Direct. Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. [Online] 2015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892.

40. California Air Resources Board. Legal Disclaimer & User's Notice. [Online] April 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/ct_reg_unofficial.pdf.

41. —. Climate Change Scoping Plan. [Online] 2014.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climat e_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

42. —. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. [Online] December 2019. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm.

43. California Energy Commission. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions from Homes and Businesses. [Online] August 11, 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standardsimprove-efficiency-reduce-0.

44. California Department of General Services. 2022 CALGreen Code. CALGreen. [Online] https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1.

45. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.

46. City of Ontario. City of Ontario Climate Action Plan. 2014.

47. —. TOP 2050 SEIR. 2022.

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

49. California Natural Resources Agency. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. [Online] December 2009.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.

50. South Coast Air Quality Managment District. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance. [Online] 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-2/ghg-meeting-2-minutes.pdf.

51. Urban Crossroads, Inc. IE Distribution Center #14 Air Quality Impact Analysis. 2022.

52. State of California. 2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2019.

53. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13. [Powerpoint] Diamond Bar : s.n., 2009.

54. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

55. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. California's Policies Can Significantly Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions through 2030. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Online] 2015. 1682
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
69 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californias-policies-can-significantly-cut-greenhouse-gasemissions-2030/.

56. Air Resources Board. 2020 GHG Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000-2019 Edition. [Online]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf. 1683
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
70 This page intentionally left blank
1684
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
71 5 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this GHG study report represent an accurate depiction of the GHG impacts associated with the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project. The information contained in this GHG report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

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

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

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

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – California Air Resources Board • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June 2006 1685
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
1686
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
APPENDIX 3.1:

CALEEMOD EXISTINGOPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
1687
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 1 / 29
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
1688
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 2 / 29

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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 1689
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 3 / 29

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

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

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
1690
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 4 / 29

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
1691
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 5 / 29

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
1692
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 6 / 29

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.06334566920109, -117.53410603073728
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5288
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

41.8 1000sqft 0.96 41,780 0.00 0.00 — —
1693
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 7 / 29

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

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. 1.29 2.16 0.98 12.8 0.02 0.04 0.80 0.85 0.04 0.14 0.18 39.7 3,803 3,842 4.23 0.11 1,122 5,104 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.92 1.82 1.03 8.94 0.02 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.04 0.14 0.18 39.7 3,615 3,655 4.24 0.12 1,114 4,909 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.90 1.80 0.89 8.16 0.02 0.04 0.59 0.63 0.04 0.10 0.14 39.7 3,086 3,126 4.22 0.10 1,116 4,378 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.16 0.33 0.16 1.49 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 6.57 511 518 0.70 0.02 185 725

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1694
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 8 / 29
Mobile 0.92 0.84 0.54 10.7 0.02 0.01 0.80 0.81 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 2,242 2,242 0.08 0.05 8.87 2,269 Area 0.32 1.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 1.29 2.16 0.98 12.8 0.02 0.04 0.80 0.85 0.04 0.14 0.18 39.7 3,803 3,842 4.23 0.11 1,122 5,104 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.87 0.79 0.60 8.58 0.02 0.01 0.80 0.81 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 2,062 2,062 0.08 0.06 0.23 2,081 Area — 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 0.92 1.82 1.03 8.94 0.02 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.04 0.14 0.18 39.7 3,615 3,655 4.24 0.12 1,114 4,909 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.63 0.57 0.45 6.56 0.02 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.10 0.11 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.04 2.80 1,545 Area 0.22 1.20 0.01 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.12 5.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.27 Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 0.90 1.80 0.89 8.16 0.02 0.04 0.59 0.63 0.04 0.10 0.14 39.7 3,086 3,126 4.22 0.10 1,116 4,378 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.10 0.08 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 253 253 0.01 0.01 0.46 256 Area 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.871695 IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 9 / 29
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 247 247 0.02 < 0.005 — 248 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
Total 0.16 0.33 0.16 1.49 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 6.57 511 518 0.70 0.02 185 725

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.92 0.84 0.54 10.7 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 2,242 2,242 0.08 0.05 8.87 2,269 Total 0.92 0.84 0.54 10.7 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 2,242 2,242 0.08 0.05 8.87 2,269 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.87 0.79 0.60 8.58 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 2,062 2,062 0.08 0.06 0.23 2,081 Total 0.87 0.79 0.60 8.58 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 2,062 2,062 0.08 0.06 0.23 2,081 1696
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 10 / 29
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.12 0.10 0.08 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 253 253 0.01 0.01 0.46 256 Total 0.12 0.10 0.08 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 253 253 0.01 0.01 0.46 256

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1697
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 11 / 29
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 162 0.02 < 0.005 — 163 rated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 162 0.02 < 0.005 — 163

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Total 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Total 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.3 84.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.3 84.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.5 1698
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 12 / 29

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.32 0.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Total 0.32 1.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1699
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 13 / 29
Architect — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 Total 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1700
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 14 / 29
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6 rated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3
1701
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 15 / 29
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
1702
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 16 / 29

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1703
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 17 / 29
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1704
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 18 / 29
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1705
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 19 / 29
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
1706
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 20 / 29

5. Activity Data

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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
207 17.5 7.02 55,311 3,007 254 102 802,453

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 62,670 20,890 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
1707
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 21 / 29
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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,027,373 349 0.0330 0.0040 794,266

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 9,661,625 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 39.3 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

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 1708 IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 22 / 29

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)

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
1709
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 23 / 29

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
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 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
1710
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 24 / 29
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
1711
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 25 / 29

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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
1712
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 26 / 29
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social —
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing —
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
1713
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 27 / 29
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
1714
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 28 / 29
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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. 1715
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 29 / 29

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates based on existing activities Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY)
Operations: Energy Use Electricity usage based on electricity bills provided by Applicant 1716
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 1 / 29
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
1717
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 2 / 29

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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 1718
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 3 / 29

5. Activity Data

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

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
1719
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 4 / 29

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

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
1720
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 5 / 29

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
1721
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 6 / 29

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.06334566920109, -117.53410603073728
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5288
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

41.8 1000sqft 0.96 41,780 0.00 0.00 — —
1722
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 7 / 29

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

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. 1.30 1.51 9.14 7.26 0.07 0.15 1.11 1.27 0.15 0.27 0.41 39.7 8,807 8,847 4.87 1.17 1,133 10,451 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.96 1.20 9.51 5.46 0.07 0.15 1.11 1.26 0.14 0.27 0.41 39.7 8,802 8,842 4.87 1.17 1,114 10,427 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.94 1.36 7.14 5.32 0.05 0.12 0.81 0.93 0.12 0.20 0.31 39.7 6,858 6,897 4.68 0.87 1,120 8,395 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.17 0.25 1.30 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.06 6.57 1,135 1,142 0.78 0.14 185 1,390

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1723
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 8 / 29
Mobile 0.93 0.19 8.70 5.08 0.06 0.12 1.11 1.23 0.11 0.27 0.38 — 7,247 7,247 0.72 1.11 19.2 7,616 Area 0.32 1.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 1.30 1.51 9.14 7.26 0.07 0.15 1.11 1.27 0.15 0.27 0.41 39.7 8,807 8,847 4.87 1.17 1,133 10,451 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.92 0.18 9.08 5.10 0.06 0.12 1.11 1.23 0.11 0.27 0.38 — 7,249 7,249 0.72 1.12 0.50 7,600 Area — 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 0.96 1.20 9.51 5.46 0.07 0.15 1.11 1.26 0.14 0.27 0.41 39.7 8,802 8,842 4.87 1.17 1,114 10,427 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.67 0.13 6.71 3.72 0.05 0.08 0.81 0.90 0.08 0.20 0.28 — 5,299 5,299 0.52 0.82 6.07 5,562 Area 0.22 1.20 0.01 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.12 5.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.27 Energy 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,490 1,490 0.14 0.01 — 1,498 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total 0.94 1.36 7.14 5.32 0.05 0.12 0.81 0.93 0.12 0.20 0.31 39.7 6,858 6,897 4.68 0.87 1,120 8,395 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.02 1.22 0.68 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 877 877 0.09 0.14 1.01 921 Area 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.871724 IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 9 / 29
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 247 247 0.02 < 0.005 — 248 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
Total 0.17 0.25 1.30 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.06 6.57 1,135 1,142 0.78 0.14 185 1,390

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.93 0.19 8.70 5.08 0.06 0.12 0.57 0.69 0.11 0.18 0.30 — 7,247 7,247 0.72 1.11 19.2 7,616 Total 0.93 0.19 8.70 5.08 0.06 0.12 0.57 0.69 0.11 0.18 0.30 — 7,247 7,247 0.72 1.11 19.2 7,616 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.92 0.18 9.08 5.10 0.06 0.12 0.57 0.69 0.11 0.18 0.30 — 7,249 7,249 0.72 1.12 0.50 7,600 Total 0.92 0.18 9.08 5.10 0.06 0.12 0.57 0.69 0.11 0.18 0.30 — 7,249 7,249 0.72 1.12 0.50 7,600 1725
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 10 / 29
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.12 0.02 1.22 0.68 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.04 — 877 877 0.09 0.14 1.01 921 Total 0.12 0.02 1.22 0.68 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.04 — 877 877 0.09 0.14 1.01 921

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 981 981 0.09 0.01 — 987
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1726
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 11 / 29
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 162 0.02 < 0.005 — 163 rated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 162 0.02 < 0.005 — 163

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Total 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Total 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.36 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 509 509 0.05 < 0.005 — 511 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.3 84.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.3 84.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.5 1727
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 12 / 29

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.32 0.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Total 0.32 1.30 0.02 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1728
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 13 / 29
Architect — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 Total 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.5 62.8 81.3 1.90 0.05 — 143 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1729
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 14 / 29
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6 rated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 0.00 21.2 2.12 0.00 — 74.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3
1730
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 15 / 29
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 0.00 3.50 0.35 0.00 — 12.3

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,113 1,113
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 184
1731
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 16 / 29

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1732
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 17 / 29
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1733
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 18 / 29
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1734
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 19 / 29
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
1735
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 20 / 29

5. Activity Data

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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
106 8.93 3.57 28,184 2,337 198 79.1 623,606

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 62,670 20,890 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
1736
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 21 / 29
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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,027,373 349 0.0330 0.0040 794,266

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 9,661,625 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 39.3 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

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 1737 IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 22 / 29

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)

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
1738
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 23 / 29

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
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 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
1739
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 24 / 29
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
1740
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 25 / 29

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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
1741
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 26 / 29
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social —
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing —
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
1742
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 27 / 29
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
1743
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 28 / 29
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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. 1744
IE Distribution Center #14 (Existing Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 29 / 29

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates based on existing activities Operations: Fleet Mix Truck Mix based on SCAQMD recommended truck mix Operations: Energy Use Electricity usage based on bills provided by the Applicant 1745
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
1746
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
APPENDIX 4.1:

CALEEMOD PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
1747
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 1 / 33
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) 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

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
1748
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 2 / 33

3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
1749
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 3 / 33

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

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

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
1750
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 4 / 33

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

8. User Changes to Default Data
1751
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 5 / 33

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction)
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.06334566920109, -117.53410603073728
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5288
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
243 1000sqft 7.08 243,303 65,274 0.00 — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

27.0 1000sqft 0.79 27,034 7,253 0.00 — —
1752
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 6 / 33
Parking Lot 299 Space 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
161 1000sqft 3.68 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. 2.13 47.2 39.6 71.8 0.13 0.38 9.62 9.95 0.36 4.00 4.32 — 15,836 15,836 0.86 0.60 10.9 16,044 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.08 47.1 30.4 53.5 0.07 0.38 2.20 2.58 0.36 0.52 0.89 — 9,589 9,589 0.43 0.25 0.28 9,674 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.67 4.08 10.5 18.5 0.03 0.13 1.31 1.44 0.12 0.45 0.57 — 3,729 3,729 0.19 0.12 1.43 3,770 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.74 1.92 3.37 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 617 617 0.03 0.02 0.24 624

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) 1753
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 7 / 33
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 2.13 1.77 39.6 71.8 0.13 0.33 9.62 9.95 0.32 4.00 4.32 — 15,836 15,836 0.86 0.60 9.37 16,044 2024 2.12 47.2 30.2 56.6 0.07 0.38 2.20 2.58 0.36 0.52 0.89 — 9,771 9,771 0.43 0.25 10.9 9,867 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.65 1.48 21.7 39.8 0.06 0.26 1.70 1.96 0.25 0.41 0.65 — 7,437 7,437 0.35 0.22 0.24 7,510 2024 2.08 47.1 30.4 53.5 0.07 0.38 2.20 2.58 0.36 0.52 0.89 — 9,589 9,589 0.43 0.25 0.28 9,674 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.67 0.59 10.5 18.5 0.03 0.13 1.31 1.44 0.12 0.45 0.57 — 3,729 3,729 0.19 0.12 1.43 3,770 2024 0.38 4.08 5.50 9.86 0.01 0.07 0.40 0.46 0.06 0.09 0.16 — 1,790 1,790 0.08 0.05 0.88 1,807 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.12 0.11 1.92 3.37 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 617 617 0.03 0.02 0.24 624 2024 0.07 0.74 1.00 1.80 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 296 296 0.01 0.01 0.14 299

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - 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

0.54 0.51 12.7 18.7 0.03 0.23 — 0.23 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,529 3,529 0.14 0.03 — 3,541 1754
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 8 / 33
Demolitio — — — — — — 0.45 0.45 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — 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

0.09 0.08 2.09 3.07 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 580 580 0.02 < 0.005 — 582 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.01 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.38 0.56 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 96.0 96.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.4 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 264 264 0.01 0.01 1.13 268 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 317 317 0.03 0.05 0.87 332 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.27 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 214 214 0.02 0.03 0.45 226 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1755
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 9 / 33
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 40.4 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 41.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 54.6 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.2 35.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 37.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 6.69 6.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.78 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.63 8.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.03 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.84 5.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.13

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - 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

0.68 0.68 15.7 30.0 0.05 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 5,530 5,530 0.22 0.04 — 5,549 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.66 5.66 — 2.69 2.69 — — — — — — —
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

0.06 0.06 1.29 2.46 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 455 455 0.02 < 0.005 — 456 1756
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 10 / 33
Dust — — — — — — 0.47 0.47 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
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

0.01 0.01 0.24 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 75.2 75.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 75.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
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 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 264 264 0.01 0.01 1.13 268 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.19 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 0.02 0.44 166 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 0.11 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.6 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 3.34 3.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.39 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.16 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.261757 IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 11 / 33
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 (2023) - 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

0.82 0.82 19.9 36.2 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
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

0.07 0.07 1.64 2.97 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 552 552 0.02 < 0.005 — 554 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.22 0.22 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
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 0.30 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 91.4 91.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.7 1758
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 12 / 33
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.01 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 294 294 0.01 0.01 1.26 298 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.19 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 0.02 0.44 166 Hauling 0.37 0.06 3.43 1.91 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.23 0.03 0.07 0.10 — 2,716 2,716 0.31 0.43 5.65 2,857 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.6 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.30 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 223 223 0.03 0.04 0.20 235 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 3.72 3.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.77 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.16 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 38.8

3.7. Building Construction (2023) - 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1759
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 13 / 33
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 0.87 20.0 31.4 0.05 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 5,110 5,110 0.21 0.04 — 5,128 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

0.91 0.87 20.0 31.4 0.05 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 5,110 5,110 0.21 0.04 — 5,128 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

0.21 0.20 4.61 7.24 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,180 1,180 0.05 0.01 — 1,184 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 0.04 0.84 1.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 195 195 0.01 < 0.005 — 196 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 0.69 0.63 0.60 10.6 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1,675 1,675 0.07 0.06 7.18 1,700 Vendor 0.09 0.02 0.94 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 792 792 0.07 0.12 2.19 831 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 1760
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 14 / 33
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.65 0.59 0.70 7.94 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1,534 1,534 0.07 0.06 0.19 1,553 Vendor 0.09 0.02 0.98 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 793 793 0.07 0.12 0.06 829 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 0.15 0.13 0.16 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 359 359 0.02 0.01 0.72 364 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 183 183 0.02 0.03 0.22 192 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 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 59.5 59.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 60.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.7 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. Building Construction (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

0.91 0.87 20.0 31.4 0.05 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 5,110 5,110 0.21 0.04 — 5,127 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1761
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 15 / 33
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 0.87 20.0 31.4 0.05 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 5,110 5,110 0.21 0.04 — 5,127 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

0.19 0.18 4.14 6.51 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,060 1,060 0.04 0.01 — 1,064 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

0.03 0.03 0.76 1.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 175 175 0.01 < 0.005 — 176 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 0.65 0.60 0.55 9.64 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1,641 1,641 0.07 0.06 6.56 1,666 Vendor 0.08 0.02 0.90 0.48 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 784 784 0.06 0.12 2.19 822 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 0.62 0.56 0.65 7.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1,504 1,504 0.07 0.06 0.17 1,523 Vendor 0.08 0.02 0.94 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 784 784 0.06 0.12 0.06 821 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 0.13 0.12 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 316 316 0.01 0.01 0.59 321 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 163 163 0.01 0.02 0.20 170 1762
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 16 / 33
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 0.29 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 52.4 52.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 53.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.2 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. Paving (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

0.23 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.23 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.03 0.89 1.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 186 186 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Paving — 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1763
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 17 / 33
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 0.16 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1764
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 18 / 33

3.13. Architectural Coating (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

0.03 0.03 1.43 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 44.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.03 0.03 1.43 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 44.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 1765
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 19 / 33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.42 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.13 0.12 0.11 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 331 331 0.01 0.01 1.32 336 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 0.13 0.11 0.13 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 303 303 0.01 0.01 0.03 307 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 25.3 25.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.7 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 4.19 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.25 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 1766
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 20 / 33

4. Operations Emissions Details

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1767
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 21 / 33
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1768
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 22 / 33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 5/2/2023 7/24/2023 5.00 60.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/25/2023 9/4/2023 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 7/25/2023 9/4/2023 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/5/2023 4/15/2024 5.00 160 — Paving Paving 2/13/2024 4/15/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/5/2024 4/15/2024 5.00 30.0 —

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 Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 1769
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 23 / 33
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 5.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Building Construction Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 5.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Demolition Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74

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 18.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 10.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT 1770
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 24 / 33
Demolition Hauling 3.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 18.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 38.0 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 114 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 25.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 23.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
1771
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 25 / 33

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)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 415,727 138,576 13,629

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 (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,922 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 105 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 9,000 120 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.21

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
1772
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 26 / 33
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 1.53 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 3.68 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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) 1773
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 27 / 33

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 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
1774
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 28 / 33
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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 1775
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 29 / 33
Exposure Indicators—
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators—
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population—
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators—
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
1776
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 30 / 33
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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social —
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing —
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes —
1777
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 31 / 33
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
1778
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 32 / 33
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
1779
IE Distribution Center #14 (Construction) Detailed Report, 8/19/2022 33 / 33

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Project Site is 13.08 acres
Construction: Construction Phases Construction anticipated to end in April 2024 Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction equipment based on equipment needed for other industrial projects within the area Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction Construction: Architectural Coatings Rule 1113
1780
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
1781
5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14539-03 GHG Report
APPENDIX 4.2:

CALEEMOD PROJECTOPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
1782
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 1 / 34
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
1783
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 2 / 34

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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 1784
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 3 / 34

5. Activity Data

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

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
1785
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 4 / 34

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

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
1786
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 5 / 34

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
1787
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 6 / 34

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.06334566920109, -117.53410603073728
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5288
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
243 1000sqft 7.08 243,303 65,274 0.00 — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

27.0 1000sqft 0.79 27,034 7,253 0.00 — —
1788
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 7 / 34
Parking Lot 299 Space 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
161 1000sqft 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

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. 3.75 9.84 3.77 29.9 0.05 0.25 1.18 1.43 0.25 0.20 0.45 257 8,875 9,132 26.6 0.41 6,525 16,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.60 7.85 3.76 15.0 0.05 0.23 1.18 1.41 0.23 0.20 0.43 257 8,562 8,818 26.6 0.41 6,512 16,117 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.68 8.85 3.60 20.1 0.04 0.24 0.86 1.10 0.24 0.15 0.39 257 7,811 8,068 26.6 0.39 6,516 15,364 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.49 1.61 0.66 3.67 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.07 42.5 1,293 1,336 4.40 0.06 1,079 2,544

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) 1789
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 8 / 34
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 1.35 1.23 0.80 15.7 0.03 0.01 1.18 1.19 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 3,299 3,299 0.11 0.08 13.1 3,338 Area 2.09 8.45 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,116 5,116 0.46 0.03 — 5,135 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Total 3.75 9.84 3.77 29.9 0.05 0.25 1.18 1.43 0.25 0.20 0.45 257 8,875 9,132 26.6 0.41 6,525 16,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.28 1.16 0.89 12.6 0.03 0.01 1.18 1.19 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 3,033 3,033 0.12 0.09 0.34 3,062 Area — 6.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,116 5,116 0.46 0.03 — 5,135 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Total 1.60 7.85 3.76 15.0 0.05 0.23 1.18 1.41 0.23 0.20 0.43 257 8,562 8,818 26.6 0.41 6,512 16,117 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.93 0.85 0.67 9.65 0.02 0.01 0.86 0.87 0.01 0.15 0.16 — 2,250 2,250 0.08 0.06 4.12 2,275 Area 1.43 7.84 0.07 8.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,116 5,116 0.46 0.03 — 5,135 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
1790
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 9 / 34
Total 2.68 8.85 3.60 20.1 0.04 0.24 0.86 1.10 0.24 0.15 0.39 257 7,811 8,068 26.6 0.39 6,516 15,364 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.17 0.15 0.12 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 373 373 0.01 0.01 0.68 377 Area 0.26 1.43 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.64 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 847 847 0.08 < 0.005 — 850 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 19.8 68.3 88.1 2.04 0.05 — 154 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 22.7 0.00 22.7 2.27 0.00 — 79.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,078 1,078
Total 0.49 1.61 0.66 3.67 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.07 42.5 1,293 1,336 4.40 0.06 1,079 2,544

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.18 1.08 0.70 13.8 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 2,892 2,892 0.10 0.07 11.4 2,926 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.17 0.15 0.10 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 407 407 0.01 0.01 1.61 412 1791
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 10 / 34
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lot
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 1.35 1.23 0.80 15.7 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 3,299 3,299 0.11 0.08 13.1 3,338 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.13 1.02 0.78 11.1 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 2,659 2,659 0.10 0.07 0.30 2,684 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.16 0.14 0.11 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 374 374 0.01 0.01 0.04 378 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.28 1.16 0.89 12.6 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 3,033 3,033 0.12 0.09 0.34 3,062 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.15 0.14 0.11 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.60 330 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.9 45.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 46.4 1792
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 11 / 34
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.17 0.15 0.12 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 373 373 0.01 0.01 0.68 377

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,073 1,073 0.10 0.01 — 1,080
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 565 565 0.05 0.01 — 569
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 55.8 55.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,695 1,695 0.16 0.02 — 1,704 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1793
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 12 / 34
Unrefrige
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,073 1,073 0.10 0.01 — 1,080
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 565 565 0.05 0.01 — 569
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 55.8 55.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,695 1,695 0.16 0.02 — 1,704 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 178 178 0.02 < 0.005 — 179
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 93.6 93.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 94.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 9.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 281 281 0.03 < 0.005 — 282

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) 1794
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 13 / 34
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.27 0.14 2.48 2.09 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,965 2,965 0.26 0.01 — 2,973 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 456 456 0.04 < 0.005 — 458 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,421 3,421 0.30 0.01 — 3,431 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.27 0.14 2.48 2.09 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,965 2,965 0.26 0.01 — 2,973 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 456 456 0.04 < 0.005 — 458 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 1795
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 14 / 34
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,421 3,421 0.30 0.01 — 3,431 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.02 0.45 0.38 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 491 491 0.04 < 0.005 — 492 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 75.6 75.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 566 566 0.05 < 0.005 — 568

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 5.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1796
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 15 / 34
Architect — 0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.09 1.93 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Total 2.09 8.45 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 5.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 6.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.26 0.24 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.64 Total 0.26 1.43 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.64

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1797 IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 16 / 34
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 108 371 479 11.1 0.27 — 836
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 41.2 53.2 1.23 0.03 — 92.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 108 371 479 11.1 0.27 — 836
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 41.2 53.2 1.23 0.03 — 92.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1798
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 17 / 34
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 17.8 61.4 79.3 1.84 0.04 — 138
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 6.83 8.81 0.20 < 0.005 — 15.4 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 19.8 68.3 88.1 2.04 0.05 — 154

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1799
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 18 / 34
Unrefrige——————————— 123 0.00 123 12.3 0.00— 431
rated Warehou
se-No
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 13.7 0.00 13.7 1.37 0.00— 47.9
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00— 479
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 123 0.00 123 12.3 0.00— 431
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 13.7 0.00 13.7 1.37 0.00— 47.9
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00— 479
Annual——————————————————
1800
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 19 / 34
Unrefrige
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 0.00 20.4 2.04 0.00 — 71.4
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.27 0.00 2.27 0.23 0.00 — 7.93
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.7 0.00 22.7 2.27 0.00 — 79.3

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,484 6,484
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 27.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
1801
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 20 / 34
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,484 6,484
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 27.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,074 1,074
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.56 4.56
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,078 1,078

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 1802
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 21 / 34
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
1803
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 22 / 34

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1804
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 23 / 34
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1805
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 24 / 34
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
1806
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 25 / 34
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
267 23.5 9.37 71,399 3,878 340 136 1,035,864
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

37.6 3.18 1.27 10,041 546 46.2 18.5 145,674
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 415,727 138,576 13,629

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
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) 1807
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 26 / 34
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,123,744 349 0.0330 0.0040 4,625,355
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 591,921 349 0.0330 0.0040 712,190 Parking Lot 58,383 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 56,263,819 1,048,248
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6,251,613 116,472
Parking Lot 0.00 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)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 229 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25.4 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 1808
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 27 / 34

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

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

5.16. 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)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation
1809
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 28 / 34

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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)

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 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 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. 1810
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 29 / 34
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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A 1811
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 30 / 34
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
1812
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 31 / 34
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
1813
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 32 / 34
Social—
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing—
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
1814
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 33 / 34
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices—
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support—
1815
IE Distribution Center #14 (Passenger Car Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 34 / 34
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Project Area is 13.08 acres
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates based on information provided in ITE 11th Edition Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY)
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater.
1816
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 1 / 32
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
1817
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 2 / 32

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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 1818
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 3 / 32

5. Activity Data

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

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
1819
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 4 / 32

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

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
1820
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 5 / 32

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
1821
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 6 / 32

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.06334566920109, -117.53410603073728
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5288
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
243 1000sqft 7.08 243,303 65,274 0.00 — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

27.0 1000sqft 0.79 27,034 7,253 0.00 — —
1822
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 7 / 32

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

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. 3.54 8.84 14.1 20.7 0.10 0.38 1.51 1.88 0.38 0.36 0.73 257 15,122 15,379 27.3 1.76 6,540 23,126 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.44 6.90 14.5 8.94 0.10 0.36 1.51 1.87 0.36 0.36 0.71 257 15,077 15,333 27.3 1.76 6,512 23,052 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.57 8.15 11.5 15.2 0.08 0.34 1.10 1.44 0.33 0.26 0.59 257 12,532 12,789 27.1 1.38 6,521 20,397 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.47 1.49 2.10 2.78 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.26 0.06 0.05 0.11 42.5 2,075 2,117 4.48 0.23 1,080 3,377

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1823
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 8 / 32
Mobile 1.14 0.28 11.1 6.51 0.09 0.15 1.51 1.65 0.14 0.36 0.49 — 9,602 9,602 0.83 1.43 28.2 10,078 Area 2.09 8.40 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,060 5,060 0.46 0.03 — 5,079 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Total 3.54 8.84 14.1 20.7 0.10 0.38 1.51 1.88 0.38 0.36 0.73 257 15,122 15,379 27.3 1.76 6,540 23,126 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.13 0.27 11.6 6.53 0.09 0.15 1.51 1.65 0.14 0.36 0.49 — 9,604 9,604 0.83 1.44 0.73 10,054 Area — 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,060 5,060 0.46 0.03 — 5,079 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Total 1.44 6.90 14.5 8.94 0.10 0.36 1.51 1.87 0.36 0.36 0.71 257 15,077 15,333 27.3 1.76 6,512 23,052 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.83 0.20 8.57 4.76 0.06 0.11 1.10 1.21 0.10 0.26 0.36 — 7,027 7,027 0.60 1.05 8.91 7,364 Area 1.43 7.79 0.07 8.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,060 5,060 0.46 0.03 — 5,079 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Total 2.57 8.15 11.5 15.2 0.08 0.34 1.10 1.44 0.33 0.26 0.59 257 12,532 12,789 27.1 1.38 6,521 20,397 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.15 0.04 1.56 0.87 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.22 0.02 0.05 0.07 — 1,163 1,163 0.10 0.17 1.47 1,219 Area 0.26 1.42 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.641824 IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 9 / 32
Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 838 838 0.08 < 0.005 — 841 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 19.8 68.3 88.1 2.04 0.05 — 154 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 22.7 0.00 22.7 2.27 0.00 — 79.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,078 1,078
Total 0.47 1.49 2.10 2.78 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.26 0.06 0.05 0.11 42.5 2,075 2,117 4.48 0.23 1,080 3,377

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.00 0.24 9.79 5.66 0.08 0.13 0.65 0.77 0.12 0.21 0.33 — 8,521 8,521 0.73 1.28 24.4 8,945 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.14 0.05 1.32 0.85 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 1,080 1,080 0.09 0.15 3.82 1,133 Total 1.14 0.28 11.1 6.51 0.09 0.15 0.74 0.88 0.14 0.24 0.38 — 9,602 9,602 0.83 1.43 28.2 10,078 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1825
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 10 / 32
Unrefrige 0.99 0.23 10.2 5.68 0.08 0.13 0.65 0.77 0.12 0.21 0.33 — 8,523 8,523 0.73 1.28 0.63 8,924 rated
Warehou
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.14 0.04 1.38 0.85 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 1,081 1,081 0.09 0.16 0.10 1,129 Total 1.13 0.27 11.6 6.53 0.09 0.15 0.74 0.88 0.14 0.24 0.38 — 9,604 9,604 0.83 1.44 0.73 10,054 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.13 0.03 1.38 0.76 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.04 — 1,033 1,033 0.09 0.16 1.28 1,082 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.02 0.01 0.19 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 131 131 0.01 0.02 0.20 137 Total 0.15 0.04 1.56 0.87 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 1,163 1,163 0.10 0.17 1.47 1,219

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1826
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 11 / 32
Unrefrige———————————— 1,073 1,073 0.10 0.01— 1,080
rated Warehou
se-No
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 565 565 0.05 0.01— 569
Total———————————— 1,639 1,639 0.16 0.02— 1,648
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 1,073 1,073 0.10 0.01— 1,080
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 565 565 0.05 0.01— 569
Total———————————— 1,639 1,639 0.16 0.02— 1,648
Annual——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 178 178 0.02 < 0.005— 179
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 93.6 93.6 0.01< 0.005
— 94.1
Total———————————— 271 271 0.03 < 0.005— 273
1827
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 12 / 32

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.27 0.14 2.48 2.09 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,965 2,965 0.26 0.01 — 2,973 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 456 456 0.04 < 0.005 — 458 Total 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,421 3,421 0.30 0.01 — 3,431 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.27 0.14 2.48 2.09 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,965 2,965 0.26 0.01 — 2,973 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 456 456 0.04 < 0.005 — 458 Total 0.32 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,421 3,421 0.30 0.01 — 3,431 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1828
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 13 / 32
Unrefrige 0.05 0.02 0.45 0.38 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 491 491 0.04 < 0.005 — 492 rated
Warehou
se-No
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 75.6 75.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Total 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 566 566 0.05 < 0.005 — 568

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 5.79 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.09 1.93 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Total 2.09 8.40 0.10 11.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.3 48.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1829
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 14 / 32
Consum — 5.79 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.26 0.24 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.64 Total 0.26 1.42 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.64

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 108 371 479 11.1 0.27 — 836
1830
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 15 / 32
Refrigera
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 41.2 53.2 1.23 0.03 — 92.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 108 371 479 11.1 0.27 — 836
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 41.2 53.2 1.23 0.03 — 92.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 120 412 532 12.3 0.30 — 929 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 17.8 61.4 79.3 1.84 0.04 — 138
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 6.83 8.81 0.20 < 0.005 — 15.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 19.8 68.3 88.1 2.04 0.05 — 154

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1831
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 16 / 32
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 123 0.00 123 12.3 0.00 — 431
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.7 0.00 13.7 1.37 0.00 — 47.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 123 0.00 123 12.3 0.00 — 431
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.7 0.00 13.7 1.37 0.00 — 47.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 — 479 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 0.00 20.4 2.04 0.00 — 71.4
1832
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 17 / 32
Refrigera — — — — — — — — — — — 2.27 0.00 2.27 0.23 0.00 — 7.93 ted
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.7 0.00 22.7 2.27 0.00 — 79.3

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,484 6,484
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 27.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,484 6,484
1833
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 18 / 32
Refrigera — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.6 27.6
ted
Warehou
se-No
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,512 6,512
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,074 1,074
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.56 4.56
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,078 1,078

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1834
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 19 / 32
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1835
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 20 / 32
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1836
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 21 / 32
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —1837
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 22 / 32
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
145 12.7 5.08 38,611 2,893 254 102 772,662
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

21.8 1.84 0.74 5,813 413 34.9 14.0 110,224

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
1838
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 23 / 32

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 405,506 135,169 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,123,744 349 0.0330 0.0040 4,625,355
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 591,921 349 0.0330 0.0040 712,190

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 56,263,819 1,048,248
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6,251,613 116,472
1839
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 24 / 32

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 229 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25.4 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

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

5.16. 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
1840
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 25 / 32
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
1841
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 26 / 32
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 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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.
1842
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 27 / 32
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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6 1843
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 28 / 32
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
1844
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 29 / 32
Employed 63.51854228
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation—
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social—
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing—
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
1845
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 30 / 32
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
1846
IE Distribution Center #14 (Truck Operations) Detailed Report, 8/18/2022 31 / 32
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5