Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, April 1, 2025 (part 21 of 25)

5096
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SB-04678 2005 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: San Antonio Channel (West Edison)
Recycled Water Pipeline Project in the Cities
of Montclair and Ontario, San Bernardino
County, California.

Encarnacion, Deirdre, Bai CRM TECH
Tang, Michael Hogan,
John J. Eddy, and Daniel
Ballester
NADB-R - 1064678 36-015982, 36-016417
SB-05358 1976 Cucamonga Creek 1776-1976 After 200
Years.

NADB-R - 1065358 Sider, W.A.

SB-05367 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment: Hofer Ranch Airport Business Park Specific Plan
Amendment, City of Ontario, San Bernardino
County, California.

Marvin, Judith and LSA
Riordan Goodwin
NADB-R - 1065367 36-016249, 36-016261
SB-05481 2005 Proposed Wireless Device Monopalm and
Associated Equipment; Branding Site, 1175
N. Del Rio Place, Ontario, California, 91761.

NADB-R - 1065481 Budinger, Fred E.

SB-06072 2008 Cultural Resource Records Search Results
for Royal Street Communications, California
LLC Candidate LA0726A (Ontario Corporate
Center), 430 North Vineyard Avenue, Ontario,
San Bernardino County, California.

Bonner, Wayne H. and
Marnie Aislin-Kay
NADB-R - 1066072
SB-06522 2009 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for T-Mobile USA Candidate IE 25501F
(Hellman Row), 6th Street and Hellman
Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County,
California.

Bonner, Wayne H. and
Sarah A. Williams
NADB-R - 1066522
SB-07006 NADB-R - 1067006 2011 Puckett, Heather R. Yale, 2235 E. 4th Street, Ontario, California.

SB-07755 2014 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Meredity Internationall Centre Project
Area in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino
County, California.

NADB-R - 1067756 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al
SB-07853 2014 Cultural Resource Assessment Class III
Inventory: Verizon Wireless Services Elma
Facility, City of Ontario, County of San
Bernardino, California.

Fulton, Phil and Casey LSA
Tibbett
NADB-R - 1067853
SB-08071 2015 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL

MONITORING, VINEYARD INDUSTRIAL II,

LLC, PROJECT AREA, ONTARIO, SAN

BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Paleo - McKenna, Jeanette A. McKENNA et al. 36-026315

Page 2 of 3 ends

5097
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SB-08204 2015 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL

MONITORING, VINEYARD INDUSTRIAL I,
LLC, BUILDING 3 PROJECT AREA,

ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
McKenna, Jeanette A. McKENNA et al. 36-026315
SB-08228 2016 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAM, 4TH STREET

SEWER PIPE INSTALLATION BETWEEN

VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARCHIBALD

AVENUE, ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Paleo - McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al.

SB-08257 2016 Due-Diligence Historical/Archaeological
Resources Study Inland Empire Utilities
Agency Recharge Basin Maintenance Plan
Chino Basin Area, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California CRM TECH
Contract No. 2989
Tang, Bai CRM TECH

Page 3 of 3 ends

5098
215 North Fifth Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com May 9, 2023
Ontario Historical Society
Ontario, CA 91762
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Ontario Heritage:

ECORP Consulting, Inc. has been retained to assist in the planning of the development on the project indicated above. The proposed project area consists of a roughly triangular area comprising a total of approximately 10.47 acres located in the City of Ontario This area Is located between the Holt Boulevard on-ramp, the Southern pacific Railroad, and a creek in the Southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 22 in Township 1 south, Range 7 west as depicted on the 1981 Photo revised version of the 1966 Guasti, California 7.5 minute topographical map, as shown in the highlighted area on the enclosed map.

As part of the identification effort, we are seeking information from all parties that may have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties or cultural resources in the area of potential effect.

Included is a map showing the project area outlined. We would appreciate input on this undertaking from the historical society with concerns about possible cultural properties or potential impacts within or adjacent to the area of potential effect. If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 307-0046 or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for your assistance in our cultural resource management study.

Sincerely,
Sonia Sifuentes
Southern California Cultural
Resources Manager/Senior
Archaeologist
Attachment:

Project Location and Vicinity Map
5099
Map Date: 5/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2023\2023-094 Ontario Hotel\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Location and Vicinity.aprx - OH_LnV (trotellini - 5/3/2023) Guasti, CA (1966[P.R.1981}, NAD27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

San Bernardino County, California
§#22, T.#01S, R.#07W, SBBM
Latitude (NAD83): 34.0642345°N
Longitude (NAD83): 117.6026438°W
Watershed: Santa Ana (#18070203)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2023-094 Ontario Hotel
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Project Area - 10.47 Acres
5100

APPENDIX B
Sacred Lands File Coordination
5101
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: ______________________________________________________________________ County:______________________________________________________________________ USGS Quadrangle Name:_______________________________________________________ Township:__________ Range:__________ Section(s):__________ Company/Firm/Agency:_________________________________________________________ Street Address:________________________________________________________________ City:______________________________________________ Zip:______________________ Phone:_____________________________________________
Fax:_______________________________________________
Email:_____________________________________________
Project Description:

ECORP Consulting, Inc.
215 North 5th Street
Redlands, CA 92374
(909)307-0056
2023-094 Ontario Hotel
San Bernardino
Guasti, California
1 South 7 West 22
(909)307-0046
[email protected]
Diversified Pacific Communities proposes the development of a 1,073,671 square foot hotel and parking facility located on an 10.47 acre lot also known as APN(0110-322-33).Please refer to project number 2023-094 and CC [email protected] and [email protected] in all correspenence. 5102
Map Date: 5/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2023\2023-094 Ontario Hotel\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Location and Vicinity.aprx - OH_LnV (trotellini - 5/3/2023) Guasti, CA (1966[P.R.1981}, NAD27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

June 4, 2023
Robert Cunningham
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: 2023-094 Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County Dear Mr. Cunningham:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
[Vacant]

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
5104
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (844) 390 - 0787
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez, Chairperson
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource
Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
Phone: (909) 262 - 9351
[email protected]
Gabrielino
1 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 2023-094 Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2023-
002630
06/04/2023 10:20 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
6/4/2023
5105
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3537
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 261 - 0254
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 919 - 3600
executivesecretary@quechantribe
.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 210 - 8739
culturalcommittee@quechantribe.
com
Quechan
2 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 2023-094 Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2023-
002630
06/04/2023 10:20 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
6/4/2023
5106
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 484 - 4835
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Linton, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 803 - 3548
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural
Resources Manager/Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 648 - 3000
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Alexandra McCleary, Cultural
Lands Manager
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 633 - 0054
alexandra.mccleary@sanmanuelnsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
[email protected]
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
3 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 2023-094 Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2023-
002630
06/04/2023 10:20 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
6/4/2023
5107
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Cultural Committee,
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
CulturalCommittee@torresmartineznsn.gov
Cahuilla
4 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 2023-094 Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2023-
002630
06/04/2023 10:20 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
6/4/2023
5108

APPENDIX C
Project Area Photographs
5109

PHOTOGRAPH RECORD

Page 1 of 1 ends

Camera Format: Digital Lens Size: 35mm
Film Type and Speed: Digital Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Mo. Day Time Exp./Frame Subject/Description View Toward Accession # 6 1 1846 Project Area overview from southeast corner North 6 1 1847 Project overview from SE corner Northwest
6 1 1848 Project overview from SE corner West
6 1 1849 Ground disturbance along southern boundary Ground 6 1 1850 Project Area overview from NE corner South
6 1 1851 Project Area overview from northest corner Southwest 6 1 1852 Ground conditions Ground
6 1 1853 Eucalyptus trees in center of property Northwest 6 1 1854 Modern dumping West
6 1 1855 Roots of felled tree West
6 1 1856 Soil and concrete debris piles West
6 1 1857 Stump of felled tree East
6 1 1858 Overview from center of Project Area North
6 1 1859 Overview from center of Project Area East
6 1 1860 Overview from center of Project Area South
6 1 1861 Overview from center of Project Area West
6 1 1862 OH-1 SCA glass shard Ground
6 1 1863 OH-1 SCA glass shard Ground
6 1 1864 Project Area overview from western end Northeast 6 1 1865 Project Area overview from western end East
6 1 1866 Project Area overview from western end South
6 1 1867 Overview of cleared and graded western ¼ of
Project Area
Southeast
6 1 1868 Ground conditions in cleared ¼ of Project Area Ground 5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117

APPENDIX D
Confidential Cultural Resource Site Location and Site Record This Attachment contains information on the specific location of cultural resources. This information is not for publication or release to the general public. It is for planning, management and research purposes only. Information on the specific location of pre-contact and historic sites is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and California Public Records Act.
5118
Appendix E
Energy Analysis
5119
Empire Groves Specific Plan Energy Calculations
Electricty and Natural Gas Usage
(kWh/yr) (MWh/yr) (kBTU/yr) (Therms/yr)
Hotel 10,364,336 10,364 19,400,828 194,008
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,610,978 1,611 0 0
Total 11,975,314 11,975 19,400,828 194,008
Project Annual Energy
Consumption
San Bernardino County Annual
Energy Consumption (2022)1,2 Percentage Increase Countywide 11,975 16,629,614 0.0720%
194,008 562,123,065 0.0345%
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

1. County annual electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

2. County annual natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

Land Use
Natural Gas (therms)
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Energy Type
Notes:

Electricity Use Natural Gas Use
Electricity (MWh)
5120
Empire Groves Specific Plan Energy Calculations
Construction Off-Road (Equipment)
Fuel Consumption
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Consumption Rate (gallon/hour)1
Duration
(total
hours/day)
# days Total Fuel Consumption
(gallon)
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 5.87 24 10 1,409.28 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8 87 0.43 1.50 32 10 478.85 Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41 2.43 8 30 582.53
Grading Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 0.55 16 30 262.66
Grading Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 8.12 16 30 3,898.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 5.87 8 30 1,409.28 Grading Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43 1.50 16 30 718.27
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 0.66 24 300 4,723.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 0.41 8 300 994.56 Building Construction Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 4.26 8 300 10,217.28 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 0.83 8 300 1,987.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 1.24 24 300 8,951.04 Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 1.36 16 20 435.46
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 1.28 16 20 410.11
Paving Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 0.55 16 20 175.10
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 0.71 8 90 511.49 37,164.67
18,336,278.40

0.2027%
Where:

Fuel Consumption Factor for a diesel engine is 0.04 gallons per horsepower per hour (gal/hp/hr) and a gasoline engine is 0.06 gal/hp/hr.

Total Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption (gallon)
Notes:

1. Fuel Consumption Rate = Horsepower x Load Factor x Fuel Consumption Factor Countywide Off-Road Fuel Consumption (2024) (gallon) 2
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Percentage Increase Countywide

2. Countywide operational fuel consumption, off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB's OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory. 5121
Empire Groves Specific Plan Energy Calculations
Constrution On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Worker Trips Worker Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
(gallon)
Site Preparation 10 17.5 18.5 3,238 130.01
Grading 30 20 18.5 11,100 445.73
Building Construction 300 456 18.5 2,530,800 101,626.95 Paving 20 15 18.5 5,550 222.87
Architectural Coating 90 91.2 18.5 151,848 6,097.62
108,523.17
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Vendor Trips Vendor Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
(gallon)
Site Preparation 10 5 10.2 510 61.12
Grading 30 16 10.2 4,896 586.78
Building Construction 300 157 10.2 480,420 57,577.49
Paving 20 0 10.2 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 90 0 10.2 0 0.00
58,225.39
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Hauling Trips Hauling Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day)1
Total Fuel Consumption
(gallon)
Site Preparation 10 0 20 0 0.00
Grading 30 542 20 325,200 38,974.64
Building Construction 300 0 20 0 0.00
Paving 20 0 20 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 90 0 20 0 0.00
38,974.64
205,723.21
205,723,206

0.1000%
Total Construction On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption (gallon)

WORKER TRIPS

VENDOR TRIPS

HAULING TRIPS

24.90284233

8.343886151

8.343886151
Hauling Trips Total
Vendor Trips Total
Worker Trips Total
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:

1. Countywide operational fuel consumption, off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB's EMFAC2021.

Percentage Increase Countywide
Countywide On-Road Fuel Consumption (2024) (gallon) 1
5122
Empire Groves Specific Plan Energy Calculations
Operation On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type
Percent of Vehicle
Trips1 Daily Trips2 Annual Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Fuel
Economy (miles
per gallon)3
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption (gallon)4
Passenger Cars 0.49 2,382 8,455,972 22 384,362
Light/Medium Trucks 0.48 2,319 8,229,813 17.3 475,712
Heavy Trucks/Other 0.03 141 500,909 6.4 78,267
Total 1.00 4,842 17,186,694 -- 938,341
938,341
1,110,012,646

0.0845%
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:

1. Percent of Vehicle Trip distribution based on trip characteristics within the CalEEMod model.

2. Daily Trips taken from Traffic Study

3. Average fuel economy derived from the Department of Transportation.

Total Operational On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption (gallon)

4. Total Daily Fuel Consumption calculated by dividing the daily VMT by the average fuel economy (i.e., VMT/Average Fuel Economy).

5. Countywide operational fuel consumption, off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB's EMFAC2021.

Countywide On-Road Fuel Consumption (2025) (gallon) 5
Percentage Increase Countywide
5123
Appendix F
Geotechnical Evaluation
5124
DRAFT

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED EMPIRE RESORT AND SPA PROJECT
APPROXIMATELY 10.4 ACRES OF VACANT LAND AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF E. HOLT BOULEVARD AND E. GUASTI ROAD, APN 011 032 233

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES
February 10, 2023
J.N. 22-398
5125
DRAFT
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California

RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE
40880 County Center Drive, Suite M, Temecula, CA 92591
T: 951.600.9271 F: 951.719.1499
For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com February 10, 2023
J.N. 22-398

DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES
10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Nolan Leggio
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Empire Resort and Spa Project, Approximately 10.4 Acres of Vacant Land at Southeast Corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road, APN 011 032 233, City of Ontario, San Bernardino, California Dear Mr. Leggio:

Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is submitting herewith our preliminary geotechnical evaluation report for the proposed Empire Resort and Spa project in the city of Ontario, California. This evaluation was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Proposal No. 22-398P dated November 18, 2022. This report is prepared based on the requirements of the 2022 California Building Code (2022 CBC) and presents our findings, engineering judgment, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the proposed development. It should be noted that this geotechnical and geological evaluation does not address soil contamination or other environmental issues, which may affect the property.

It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or require additional information.

Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.

Douglass Johnston, CEG Siamak Jafroudi, PhD, GE
Senior Associate Geologist Senior Principal Engineer
5126
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................................................1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................2 Literature and Online Imagery Review..............................................................................................................2 Field Exploration and Testing ............................................................................................................................3 Laboratory Testing.............................................................................................................................................4 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................................4 Regional Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................................4 Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions.................................................................................................5 Groundwater.......................................................................................................................................................5 Faulting ..............................................................................................................................................................6 Secondary Seismic Effects.................................................................................................................................6 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement .............................................................................................6 Compressible Soils.............................................................................................................................................7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................8 Development Feasibility ....................................................................................................................................8 Seismic Shaking.................................................................................................................................................8 Earthwork Recommendations..................................................................................................................................9 General Recommendations ................................................................................................................................9 Geotechnical Observations and Testing .............................................................................................................9 Clearing and Grubbing.......................................................................................................................................9 Suitability of On-Site Materials for Use as Engineered Fill...............................................................................9 Excavation Characteristics...............................................................................................................................10 Ground Preparation................................................................................................................................................10 Geotechnical Observations...............................................................................................................................10 Unsuitable Soil Removals and Bottom Processing ..........................................................................................10 Fill Placement ..................................................................................................................................................11 Temporary Excavations....................................................................................................................................11 Import Soils for Grading ..................................................................................................................................12 Volumetric Changes - Shrinkage and Subsidence............................................................................................12 Seismic Design Parameters..............................................................................................................................12 General Corrosivity Screening...............................................................................................................................13 Post-Grading Considerations.................................................................................................................................14 Utility Trenches................................................................................................................................................14 Site Drainage....................................................................................................................................................15 RETAINING WALLS.................................................................................................................................................15 Conventional Retaining Walls...............................................................................................................................15 Footing Embedment.........................................................................................................................................15 Allowable Bearing Capacity and Lateral Resistance .......................................................................................16 Active Earth Pressures .....................................................................................................................................17 Earthquake Loads.............................................................................................................................................18 Geotechnical Observation and Testing.............................................................................................................18 Backdrains........................................................................................................................................................18 Waterproofing ..................................................................................................................................................19 Temporary Excavations....................................................................................................................................19 Wall Backfill Placement...................................................................................................................................19 Masonry Screen Walls...........................................................................................................................................19 Construction on Level Ground.........................................................................................................................19 5127
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Construction Joints...........................................................................................................................................20 Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations.................................................................................................20 Concrete Loading Docks..................................................................................................................................21 Non-Pavement Exterior Concrete Flatwork...........................................................................................................21 General.............................................................................................................................................................21 Thickness and Joint Spacing ............................................................................................................................22 Reinforcement..................................................................................................................................................22 Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................................................................22 Drainage...........................................................................................................................................................23 Tree Wells........................................................................................................................................................23 GRADING, EXCAVATION AND STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEWS....................................................................23 REPORT LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................24 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................25

ATTACHMENTS
FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 – EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
APPENDIX A – EXPLORATION LOGS (BORINGS, TEST PITS, SEISMIC LINE AND CPT’S) APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES / LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY APPENDIX C – STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
5128
DRAFT

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

PROPOSED EMPIRE RESORT AND SPA PROJECT
APPROXIMATELY 10.4 ACRES OF VACANT LAND AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF E. HOLT BOULEVARD AND E. GUASTI ROAD, APN 011 032 233

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION
Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is presenting herein the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed development of a 10-story hotel building with 2-levels of subterranean parking and appurtenant facilities within the subject 10.4-acre property situated at the southeast corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road in the city of Ontario, California. The purpose of this study was to obtain subsurface and subsurface information on the general geologic and geotechnical conditions within the project area in order to provide preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the feasibility of the proposed project, as well as preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, grading and general site improvements. As grading plans, foundation and basement plans, and structural building loads are still being developed at this time, geotechnical recommendations for the building foundations will be provided under a separate cover at the appropriate time.

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of our evaluation consisted of the following. • Review of available published and unpublished reports, maps and data concerning geologic and soil conditions within the site and nearby area that could have an impact on the proposed development (see References).
• Review of readily available satellite imagery of the site and surrounding area. • Coordinate with Underground Service Alert [USA] to obtain an underground-utility clearance, prior to commencement of the subsurface exploration.
• Geotechnical excavation, logging, and sampling of 12 exploratory test pits utilizing a conventional backhoe, 6 exploratory borings utilizing a hollow-stem auger drill rig, 3 Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings and performing one geophysical survey. Log and visually classify soil and materials encountered in the borings and test pits in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
• Conducting laboratory testing of representative in-situ drive and bulk samples obtained from the borings and test pits to determine their engineering properties. • Engineering and geologic analysis of the research, field exploration findings and laboratory data with respect to the proposed site development.
• Preparation of this preliminary geotechnical report presenting the results of our evaluation and providing recommendations for the proposed site development in general conformance with the requirements of the 2022 CBC, as well as in accordance with applicable state and local jurisdictional requirements.
5129
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 2 ends

LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is roughly triangular-shaped and 10.4 acres± in size, situated south of E. Holt Boulevard, north and east of E. Guasti Road and west of the concrete-lined Cucamonga Creek flood control channel. Figure 1 depicts the general site location. The property is surrounded by chain link fencing; however, two gates are present along Guasti Road on the southwest. A graded slope and dirt pathway is present along the eastern property line allowing access to the flood control channel to a concrete ramp.

Structures are not known to be present however surface of the site appears to have been generally disturbed most notably in the western corner. Overhead power lines are also present along the very southern portion along Guasti and underground utilities are likely to be present adjacent to Guasti and Road and Holt Boulevard.

The property is relatively flat, sloping very gently towards the south-southeast with site elevations ranging from approximately 968 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northwest corner to approximately 954 feet in the southeast corner. The site is essentially vacant with the exception of a number of mature trees that are present in the central potions of the site. The remainder of the site is covered with a light growth of grasses and weeds, a few remnant tree trunks as well as scattered dumped debris and trash and occasional scattered cobbles.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the conceptual planning and massing exhibits prepared by Gensler dated January 9, 2023, the planned development is a mixed-use resort complex including a 10-story, 672,850 square-foot hotel, spa, convention center and retail building with 2-stories of underground parking. Ancillary site improvements are expected to include driveway and parking lot pavements, underground utilities (sewer, water, storm drain and dry utilities), an outdoor pool complex, perimeter masonry walls, sidewalks and landscaping. The building types and loads are currently unknown.

Conceptual grading plans and proposed building and underground garage elevations are not currently developed, however based on the topography of the site, we expected cuts or fills from existing grades to be on the order of 4 feet or less, with the exception of the areas for the underground parking garage. No notable cut or fills slopes are anticipated.

Literature and Online Imagery Review
Petra researched and reviewed available published and unpublished geologic data pertaining to regional geology, faulting and geologic hazards that may affect the site, see references. Available online aerial 5130
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 3 ends

imagery and historic aerial photos were reviewed to assess previous land use. Based on historic aerial photos reviewed, the subject site appears to have been utilized for agricultural row crops since at least 1938. Holt Boulevard, a paved single lane road, was present on the north by 1938 and Cucamonga Creek on the east was essentially an uncontrolled natural stream channel. By 1949 Holt Boulevard was widened to a two-lane road which included a culvert just northeast of the site; Cucamonga Creek was graded as a linear earthen channel and another culvert was built to the southeast of the site. Ontario airport had also been built to the south/southwest of the site. In 1953 the site conditions were the same.

By 1977 Guasti Road was paved on the south and west and Cucamonga Creek was further graded and widened as an earthen channel which included a new culvert under Guasti Road just off the southeast property corner. Row crops were still present in 1977. By 1994 the row crops were absent, a number of mature trees were present in the center of the site, and Cucamonga Creek had been fully improved as a concrete-lined channel including additional grading along the eastern property line area and the adjacent descending concrete access ramp. The site appears to have been essentially unchanged since that time other than surficial ground disturbance, mostly notably on the west.

Field Exploration and Testing
Subsurface explorations were conducted under the supervision of an engineering geologist from Petra between December 12 and 30, 2022. Subsurface exploration involved exploration consisted of 6 hollowstem auger borings (B-1 to B-6) utilizing a conventional drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter augers.

The borings were drilled and sampled to depths ranging from 51.5 to 101.5 feet below grades. Twelve exploratory test pits (TP-1 through TP-12) were excavated to depths between 8 to 15 feet below existing site grades utilizing a conventional backhoe. The test trenches were loosely backfilled. Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings and test pits were classified and logged in accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Additionally, 3 Cone Penetration Test soundings (CPT-1 to CPT-3) were advanced to approximate depths between 10 and 24 feet below surface grades utilizing a truck-mounted CPT rig where they encountered refusal at all three locations on subsurface gravels or cobbles. Lastly, the fieldwork included performing one surface seismic shear-wave survey (SW-1) by a registered geophysicist to characterize the shear wave velocity to a depth of at least 100 feet beneath the site. The approximate locations of the points of explorations are shown on the attached Figure 2 including the outline of the hotel tower location and descriptive logs are presented in Appendix A.
5131
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 4 ends

Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the soil materials for laboratory testing. Disturbed bulk samples and relatively undisturbed ring samples of soil materials were collected for classification, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch outside diameter modified California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. The soil sampler was driven with successive 30-inch drops of a free-fall, 140-pound automatic trip hammer. The central portions of the driven-core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil were recorded for each 6-inch driving increment and are noted in the boring logs as Blows per 6 inches.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were also performed at selected depth intervals in accordance with ASTM D 1586. This method consists of mechanically driving an unlined, 2.5-inch outside diameter (OD) standard split-barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30-inch drops of the 140-pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6-inch driving increment were recorded on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the standard split-spoon sampler for each 6 inch increment are identified as the uncorrected standard penetration resistance (N). Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard splitspoon samplers were placed in sealed plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for testing.

Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing for selected samples of onsite soils materials included in-situ dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, plasticity index, consolidation potential, grain-size sieve analysis and general soil corrosivity screening potential (sulfate content, chloride content, pH/resistivity). A description of laboratory test methods and laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B and the in-site dry density and moisture content results are presented on the boring logs (Appendix A).

FINDINGS
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject property is situated within the northernmost portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. Bedrock underlying the site at significant depths is part of the Perris Block which is composed of Cretaceous-age granitic and Mesozoic-age metamorphic crystalline bedrock. The Perris Block is bounded on the east by the San Jacinto fault zone, on the west by the Elsinore-Chino fault zone, on the north by the Cucamonga fault and the San Gabriel Mountains. The southern boundary of the block is vague, with an approximate boundary coincident with the hills south of Temecula, California. 5132
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 5 ends

Locally, the subject site is located on the medial portion of several large coalescing alluvial fans related to San Antonio Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek and Day Canyon washes, extending southward from the flanks of the San Gabriel Mountain range further to the north. The alluvial-fan deposits in the general vicinity of the site reportedly extend to depths of approximately 300 feet or more. The former natural stream Cucamonga Creek has been improved as a concrete-line flood control channel along the eastern boundary of the site involving unknown extent of earthwork grading.

Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions
Based on the earth units encountered within our field evaluation, the surface of the site is mantled by shallow undocumented fill generally ranging in depth from 2 to 4 feet below ground surface (bgs). The surficial artificial fills are underlain by natural younger alluvial fan deposits and further underlain by older alluvial fan deposits related to the ancestral alluvial fan to the total depth explored. The onsite soil units are discussed in detail below and a generalized geologic cross section is attached as Figure 3. • Artificial Fill – Undocumented, artificial fills soils were observed mantling the site and overlying natural alluvial soils. The fills were found to range in depth from approximately 2 to 4 feet bgs, averaging approximately 3 below grades and slightly deeper in the westerly side of the site. These soils were generally composed of dry and loose, silty fine to medium sands to occasional layers of sand with varying amount of gravels and occasional small cobbles, debris and fine roots. • Younger Alluvial Fan Deposits – Young alluvial fan deposits were observed beneath the surface fills to approximate depths between 20 and 25 feet bgs. These upper alluvial fan deposits primarily consisted of medium dense, moist, silty sand with gravels and occasional small to medium cobbles with some thin to thickly interbedded sand with silt to poorly grades sand layers also with gravels and occasional small cobbles. Minor caving was observed in the deeper test pit excavations around 13 to 15 feet bgs.
• Older Alluvial Fan Deposits – Older alluvial fan deposits are present beneath the younger alluvium beginning at an approximate depth of 20 to 25 feet bgs and extending to the total depth explored.

These soil materials consisted of dense to very dense, moist, thickly bedded silty sands with variable gravel content and several poorly graded sands/sand with silt interbeds. A notable moist and hard sandy silt bed is present at approximately 50 to 60 feet bgs and again at approximately 70 to 75 feet. Difficult drilling with apparent caving was encountered around 80 to 83 feet bgs.

Groundwater
Neither groundwater nor seepage was encountered in the borings during our subsurface exploration to a maximum depth of 101.5 feet bgs. Based on our research and review of published geotechnical literature including the Chino Basin Watermaster, the current depths to groundwater in the general area is reported to be in excess of 300 feet bgs. Regional groundwater is not anticipated to affect the proposed development. 5133
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 6 ends

Faulting
Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to site geology, no active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within the bounds of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Hazard Zoning Act (Bryant and Hart, 2007) nor within a San Bernardino County fault zone. In addition, we did not observe any features in the field that would indicate active faulting. The closest known Quaternary fault is the Red Hill – Etiwanda fault which lies approximately 1,500 feet to the north. The potential for active fault rupture at the site is considered to be very low.

Secondary Seismic Effects
Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a site include several types of ground failure and seismically induced flooding. Various general types of ground failures, which might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking at the site, include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching and lateral spreading. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. The subject property proposed for development exhibits nearly level topography that is not subject to landsliding, and the potential for ground lurching and lateral spreading are considered very low. The potential for seismically-induced flooding due to tsunami or seiche (i.e., a wave-like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin) is considered negligible at this site.

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction occurs when strong seismic shaking of a saturated sand or silt causes intergranular fluid (porewater) pressures to increase to levels where grain-to-grain contact is lost, and material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, loss of bearing, settlement and tilting of structures, lateral movement of soil masses, flotation and buoyancy of buried structures and fissuring of the ground surface. A common surface manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils – short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly deposited, usually conical mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface.

For sandy soils above the water table, strong seismic shaking can also result in rearrangement of the granular soil structure leading to densification of sandy soils, ground settlement and settlement and tilting of superstructures. Assessment of liquefaction or dry sand settlement potential for a particular site requires knowledge of a number of regional as well as site-specific parameters, including the estimated design earthquake magnitude, and the associated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration at the site, 5134
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 7 ends

subsurface stratigraphy and soil characteristics. Parameters such as estimated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration can readily be determined using published references, or by utilizing a commercially available computer program specifically designed to perform a probabilistic analysis. On the other hand, stratigraphy and soil characteristics can only be accurately determined by means of a site-specific subsurface investigation combined with appropriate laboratory analysis of representative samples of onsite soils.

Propagating earthquake waves induce shearing stresses and strains in soil materials during strong ground shaking. This process rearranges the structure of granular soils such that there is an increase in density, with a corresponding decrease in volume, which results in vertical settlement. Dynamic settlement has been well documented in wet, sandy deposits undergoing liquefaction (see Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) and in relatively dry sediments as well (Stewart et al, 1996). Specific methods to analyze potential wet and dry dynamic settlement are reported in Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), and specifically dry settlement in Pradel (1998) and Stewart et al. (2001; 2002) respectively. Most of the referenced papers focus on the seismic effects on dry, clean sands of a uniform grain size, though several reports extend the literature to finegrained soils (Stewart et al., 2001 & 2002). State guidelines for evaluating dynamic settlement are provided in the California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008).

San Bernardino County has identified the general subject area within a low liquefaction zone. Groundwater is currently reported at depths of great that 300 feet bgs and considering the very dense underlying older alluvial fans deposits, liquefaction-induced settlement is considered negligible.

Dynamic Settlement Potential Analysis
A stated above, propagating earthquake waves induce shearing stresses and strains in soil materials during strong ground shaking. This process rearranges the structure of granular soils such that there is an increase in density, with a corresponding decrease in volume, which results in vertical settlement. To determine the estimated seismically induced settlement from the SPT blow counts, an idealized soil profile was constructed using the SPT blow count results from Borings B-1 through B-6. Using the dry sand settlement method presented by Pradel (1998), the total calculated settlement was significantly less than ¼ inch based on the peak ground acceleration, PGA, of 0.75g and an earthquake magnitude of 6.9. Therefore, total seismic settlement of dry soils constitutes an insignificant portion of the total settlement.

Compressible Soils
A notable geotechnical factor affecting the project site is the presence of existing artificial fills and lowdensity and dry, younger alluvial soils. For relatively light-weight structures, these upper materials, ranging 5135
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 8 ends

in depth from approximately 6 to 10 feet bgs across the majority site, in their current state are not considered suitable for support of anticipated loads. Therefore, these materials should be removed to an approximate depth of 10 feet and replaced with engineered fill. Any such building may be supported on a shallow spread footing system embedded in compacted fill soils. The removed soils are considered to be suitable for reuse as engineered fill.

The lower approximately 10 feet of the younger alluvial soils are not expected to be suitable for the support of the main, moderate- to high-rise structure, however a portion of the proposed structure is expected to be supported on footings that are within the 2-story subterranean parking. As such, no remedial grading, i.e., over-excavation and replacement is deemed necessary in this area. Conversely, depending on the anticipated loads, considerations maybe given to removing the upper approximately 15 to 20 feet of soils consisting of younger alluvial fan deposits to support the other parts of the proposed main structure.

Accordingly, these materials will require removal (over-excavation) to expose the underlying competent older alluvial fan deposits, to be verified in the field by the geotechnical consultant. The removed soils are considered to be suitable for re-use as engineered fill.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Feasibility
Based on our field explorations, research and review of pertinent geologic literature, and preliminary laboratory testing and analysis, development of the project site is considered feasible for the proposed mixed-use development from a soils engineering, geologic and geotechnical standpoint. When grading plans and foundation/structural plans for the proposed development are available, a comprehensive plan review should be performed by this firm. The following geotechnical factors should be considered during the preliminary design process.

Seismic Shaking
The site is located within an active tectonic area of southern California with several significant faults capable of producing moderate to strong earthquakes. The site will likely be subjected to very strong seismically related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the project and structures within the site should therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the most current edition of the 2022 California Building Code. 5136
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 9 ends

Earthwork Recommendations
General Recommendations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the Grading Code of the City of Ontario and to the applicable provisions of the 2022 CBC and should also be performed in accordance with the following sitespecific recommendations prepared by Petra herein based on the proposed construction.

Geotechnical Observations and Testing
Prior to the start of earthwork, a meeting should be held at the site with the owner, contractor and geotechnical consultant to discuss the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Earthwork, which in this instance will generally entail removal and re-compaction of existing unsuitable soils, overexcavation, subterranean parking excavation and, if applicable, shoring elements installation, should be accomplished under full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should be present onsite during all earthwork operations to document proper placement and compaction of fills, as well as to document compliance with the other recommendations presented herein.

Clearing and Grubbing
All existing trees and vegetation throughout the site should be removed from the site. Clearing operations should also include the removal of any trash, debris, vegetation and similar deleterious materials including the root balls for any trees. Any cavities or excavations created upon removal of any unknown subsurface structures should be cleared of loose soil, shaped to provide access for backfilling and compaction equipment and then backfilled with engineered fill. Note that buried deleterious materials may be encountered within the site (i.e., buried debris) due to the past site usage and may need to be removed by hand (i.e. root pickers), during grading operations.

The project geotechnical consultant should provide periodic observation and testing services during final clearing and grubbing operations to document compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, should unusual or adverse soil conditions or buried structures be encountered during grading that are not described herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations.

Suitability of On-Site Materials for Use as Engineered Fill Based on our field observations and subsurface soil conditions encountered in our test pits, the onsite soil materials would be suitable for use as engineered fill, provided they are clean of organics, construction 5137
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 10 ends

debris or other deleterious materials and oversize rock fragments greater than 12 inches in diameter. Soils exposed at or near the surface will likely require moisture-conditioning, i.e. pre-watering, to near optimum moisture for use as engineered fill during the onset of grading.

Excavation Characteristics
The existing site soils consisting of native older and younger alluvial fan deposits are expected to be readily excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. The presence of concentrated gravels. cobble layers or low-cohesion sand layers may prohibit vertical excavation in localized areas.

Ground Preparation
Geotechnical Observations
A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should also be present on site during major grading operations to document that proper placement and adequate compaction of fills has been achieved, as well as to observe compliance with the other recommendations presented herein. Exposed bottom surfaces in remedial removal areas should be observed and approved by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of fill. It is the grading contractor's responsibility to notify the project geotechnical consultant at least 24 hours prior to requiring observation (including excavation bottom verification).

Unsuitable Soil Removals and Bottom Processing
The existing roughly 6 to 10 feet of upper soils are not considered suitable for support of proposed fills, structures and other improvements and should be removed to underlying competent alluvial materials as approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Further, due to anticipated large structural building loads, considerations should be given to removing the upper approximately 15 to 20 feet of soils consisting of younger alluvial fan deposits to support these anticipated heavy buildings loads on a shallow spread footing system. No removal and over-excavation is expected in areas where the building will consist of a subterranean parking.

Soil removals may need to be locally deeper depending in other areas upon the exposed conditions encountered during grading. Remedial removals should extend horizontally at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the building foundations. The actual depths and horizontal limits of removals and over-excavations should be evaluated during grading on the basis of observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant.
5138
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 11 ends

Remedial soil removals in parking lot, driveways and other non-building pad or retaining wall areas may be reduced to a minimum of 4 feet below existing site grades.

Prior to placing engineered fill or processing, the exposed bottom surfaces in the removal areas should be approved by a representative of project geotechnical consultant first. The exposed bottom(s) should then be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately two percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted with a heavy construction equipment prior to placement of fill. Minimum compaction of the upper 12 inches of the removal bottom should meet or exceed 90 percent relative compaction. The laboratory maximum dry density, the standard for determining relative compaction, and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1557.

Fill Placement
Clean onsite soils free of oversize rocks and used for fill materials supporting the building structures should be placed in approximately 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 above optimum moisture condition, and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Fill materials in non-building structure areas should follow the same procedures as above but may be compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.

Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations varying up to a depth of up to roughly 20 feet below existing grades may be required to accomplish the recommended over-excavation of existing soils and possibly deeper for construction of basement foundations and walls. Based on the physical properties of the onsite soils, temporary excavations which are constructed exceeding 4 feet in height should be cut /laid back to an inclination of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter for the duration of the over-excavation of unsuitable soil material and replacement as compacted fill, as well as placement of underground utilities. The 1:1 (h:v) recommendation may possibly be steepened, depending on conditions observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant. Other factors which should be considered with respect to the stability of the temporary slopes include construction traffic and/or storage of materials on or near the tops of the slopes, construction scheduling, presence of nearby walls or structures on adjacent properties and weather conditions at the time of construction. Applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health act of 1970 and the Construction Safety Act should also be followed. 5139
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 12 ends

Shoring Considerations
Based on the construction scheduling and available adjacent space for excavation of the subterranean parking area, it may not be possible to cut and lay back the excavated slopes of the subterranean parking at a 1:1 (h:v) gradient. As such, the excavation may require shoring support. Recommendations for design and construction of the shoring system will be provided once more detailed project specifications and requirements are available.

Import Soils for Grading
If imported soils are needed to attain proposed design grades, they should be free of deleterious materials, oversize rock and any hazardous materials. The soils should also be essentially low or non-expansive, and essentially non-corrosive and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to being brought onsite.

The geotechnical consultant should visit the potential borrow site(s) and conduct testing of the soil at least three days before the commencement of import operations.

Volumetric Changes - Shrinkage and Subsidence
Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when onsite soils are excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Based on our observations of earth materials encountered in the borings, an estimated shrinkage factor on the order of 10 to 15 percent may be considered during removal and re-compaction of the upper native alluvial fan soils. The actual shrinkage that will occur during grading will depend on the average degree of relative compaction achieved. A subsidence of approximately 0.1 feet may be anticipated as a result of the scarification and re-compaction of the exposed bottom surfaces within the removal areas.

The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended for use by project planners in estimating earthwork quantities and should not be considered absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that will occur during site grading.

Seismic Design Parameters
Earthquake loads on earthen structures and buildings are a function of ground acceleration which may be determined from the site-specific ground motion analysis. Owing to the conceptual structural details, i.e., structures with stories in excess of 10, it is expected that the structure’s natural vibration period to be in excess of 0.5 second. As such, a site-specific ground motion analysis is currently in progress, the results of which will be published under a separate cover.
5140
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 13 ends

General Corrosivity Screening
As a screening level study, limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on samples considered representative of the onsite soils to identify potential corrosive characteristics of these soils. The common indicators associated with soil corrosivity include water-soluble sulfate and chloride levels, pH (a measure of acidity), and minimum electrical resistivity.

It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the test results, opinion and engineering judgment provided herein should be considered as general guidelines only. Additional analyses would be warranted, especially, for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the project geotechnical engineer may not be informed of these choices.

Therefore, for conditions where such elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect, landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer) also consider recommending a qualified corrosion engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near-surface soils during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may be exposed to corrosive soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate.

In general, a soil’s water-soluble sulfate levels and pH relate to the potential for concrete degradation; water-soluble chlorides in soils impact ferrous metals embedded or encased in concrete, e.g., reinforcing steel; and electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil’s corrosion potential to a variety of buried metals used in the building industry, such as copper tubing and cast or ductile iron pipes. Table 2, below, presents the range of each category of individual test results with an interpretation of current code indicators and guidelines that are commonly used in this industry. The table includes the code-related classifications of the soils as they relate to the various tests, as well as a general recommendation for possible mitigation measures in view of the potential adverse impact on various components of the proposed structures in direct contact with site soils. The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in their entirety by the project structural engineer, corrosion engineer and/or the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on-ground, garage slabs, wall foundations and concrete exposed to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc.
5141
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 14 ends

TABLE 2
Soil Corrosivity Screening Results
Test Test Results Classification General Recommendations Soluble Sulfates
(Cal 417) 0.002 percent S0(1) Type II cement; min. f’c= 2,500 psi; no water/cement ratio restrictions pH
(Cal 643) 7.8 to 8.1 Slightly to ModeratelyAlkaline No special recommendations Soluble Chloride
(Cal 422) 240 to 262 ppm C1(2) No special recommendations Resistivity
(Cal 643) 4,600 to 5,000 ohm-cm
Corrosive to
Moderately Corrosive3
Consult with professional corrosion
engineer
Notes:

1. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3

2. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3

3. Pierre R. Roberge, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering” Post-Grading Considerations
Utility Trenches
All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Trench backfill materials should be screened on rocks greater than 6-inches in diameter and placed in lifts no greater than approximately 12 inches in thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should probe and test the backfills to verify adequate compaction.

As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe or utility lines may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building floor slabs, clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand backfill materials should be watered to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then tamped into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify an adequate degree of compaction.

If clean, imported sand is to be used for backfill of exterior utility trenches, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of trench backfill materials consist of properly compacted onsite soil materials. This is to mitigate infiltration of irrigation and rainwater into granular trench backfill materials.

Where an exterior and/or interior utility trench is proposed in a direction parallel to a building footing, the bottom of the trench should not extend below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from 5142
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 15 ends

the bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition occurs, the adjacent footing should be deepened or the utility constructed and the trench backfilled and compacted prior to footing construction.

Where utility trenches cross under a building footing, these trenches should be backfilled with on-site soils at the point where the trench crosses under the footing to reduce the potential for water to migrate under the floor slabs.

Site Drainage
Positive surface drainage systems consisting of a combination of sloped concrete flatwork/asphalt pavement, sheet flow gradients, swales and surface area drains (where needed) should be provided around all buildings, structures and within the planter areas to collect and direct all surface waters to an appropriate drainage facility as determined by the project civil engineer. The ground surfaces of planter and landscape areas that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. The ground surface of planter and landscape areas that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains.

Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be inclined at a minimum gradient of one percent away from the building foundations and towards the nearest area drains.

Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent towards the nearest area drains. Surface waters should not be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations and within the level areas of the site. All drainage devices should be properly maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Future changes to site improvements, or planting and watering practices, should not be allowed to cause over-saturation of site soils adjacent to the structures.

RETAINING WALLS
Conventional Retaining Walls
The design and construction of any proposed conventional retaining walls, those that are not a part of the subterranean parking, should be performed in general compliance with the following recommendations.

Footing Embedment
The base of retaining-wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade for low height walls. Where retaining walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of adjacent descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a 5143
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 16 ends

horizontal clearance of 5 feet or more is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the footings and the face of the slope. Footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical representative to document that the footing trenches have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the embedment recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel.

Allowable Bearing Capacity and Lateral Resistance
In the areas where light-weight structures are proposed, a basic allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot, including dead and live loads, may be utilized for design of 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and by 10 percent for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces.

In the areas where moderate- to heavy-weight structures are proposed, an allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,500 pounds per square foot, including dead and live loads, may be utilized for design of 24-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and by 10 percent for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces.

A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot, may be used to determine lateral bearing resistance for footings. In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.35 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third when designing for transient wind or seismic forces.

It should be noted that the above values are based on the condition where footings are cast in direct contact with compacted fill or competent native soils. In cases where the footing sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings upon removal of forms should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the applicable maximum dry density. Lateral support derived from the upper 6 inches of soil placed against the outside edge of the footing, however, should be ignored, except where the ground surface is paved or covered by concrete flatwork.
5144
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 17 ends

Active Earth Pressures
Onsite Soils Used for Backfill
Onsite soils are sandy and silty with generally a very low to low expansive potential and maybe used for retaining wall backfill.

Utilizing this range of expansion potential soils for wall backfill, an active lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 65 pcf. For top-restrained retaining walls, above values should be increased by 50 percent.

Retaining walls should be constructed with a proper subdrain system (see Figure RW-1). All walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the above recommended active and at-rest earth pressures.

All structural calculations and details should be provided to the project geotechnical consultant for verification purposes prior to construction.

Import Soils Used for Backfill
Very low or low expansive soils may be imported into the site for use as retaining wall backfill and should be tested prior to placement to verify they exhibit a very low to low expansion potential.

Utilizing very low to low expansion potential soils for wall backfill, an active lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 61 pcf. For top-restrained retaining walls, above values should be increased by 50 percent.

All structural calculations and details should be provided to the project geotechnical consultant for verification purposes prior to construction.
5145
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 18 ends

Imported Sand, Pea Gravel or Rock Used for Wall Backfill Imported clean sand exhibiting a sand equivalent value (SE) of 30 or greater, or pea gravel or crushed rock may also be considered for wall backfill. The sand, pea gravel or rock backfill materials should extend behind the walls to a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet at the base of the wall or to a horizontal distance equal to the heel width of the footing, whichever is greater (see Figures RW-2 and RW-3).

For the above conditions, an active lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 41 pcf. The above values should be increased by 50 percent for top-restrained retaining walls. These values are also for retaining walls supplied with a proper subdrain system. Furthermore, as with imported soil backfill, the walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the recommended active and at-rest earth pressures.

Earthquake Loads
Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC requires the determination of lateral loads on retaining walls from earthquake forces for structures in seismic design categories D through E that are supporting in excess of 6 feet of retained height. Since the exact retaining walls configurations are not known, design recommendations for retaining walls supporting in excess of 6 feet of backfill will provided once the structural details are further determined.

Geotechnical Observation and Testing
All grading associated with retaining wall construction, including backcut excavations, observation of the footing trenches, installation of the backdrain systems, and placement of backfill should be provided by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant.

Backdrains
To reduce the likelihood of the entrapment of water in the backfill soils, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of 3 feet. Weepholes, if used, should be 3-inches minimum diameter and provided at intervals of 6 feet or less along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be provided at 32-inch intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 3 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
5146
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 19 ends

A perforated pipe-and-gravel backdrain should be constructed behind retaining walls exceeding a height of 3 feet (see Figures RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3). Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40, or ABS SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1- foot-wide column of ¾-inch to 1½-inch open-graded gravel. The open-graded gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and then routed to a suitable area for discharge of accumulated water.

Waterproofing
The backfilled sides of retaining walls should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit migration of moisture through the walls.

Temporary Excavations
Temporary slopes may be cut at a gradient no steeper than 1:1 (h:v). However, the project geotechnical engineer should observe temporary slopes for evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes.

Wall Backfill Placement
Recommended active pressure for design of retaining walls are based on the physical and mechanical properties of the onsite soil materials. The backfill behind the proposed retaining walls, they should be placed in approximately 6- to 8-inch-thick maximum lifts, watered as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then mechanically compacted in place to a relative compaction of no less than 90 percent. Flooding or jetting of the backfill materials should be avoided. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe the backfill procedures and test the wall backfill to verify adequate compaction.

Masonry Screen Walls
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry walls are proposed on level ground and 5 feet or more from the tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded 18 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one near top and one near bottom. 5147
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 20 ends

Construction Joints
In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 20 to 25 feet and at each corner. The separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings. The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls.

Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations
The final pavement section should be designed once site rough grading has occurred and the R-Value of the resulting subgrade can be determined. For the purposes of this preliminary evaluation, we assumed an R-value of 70 based on the very sandy soil types encountered in near-surface soils. The following pavement sections have been computed in accordance with Caltrans design procedures and presented in the following tables, Table 3 and 4. Based upon our experience, the thicker pavement section is provided below is recommended due to increased performance and life.

TABLE 3
Preliminary Structural Asphalt Pavement Sections
Location Preliminary Design
R-value
Traffic
Index Pavement Section
Auto Parking Spaces 70 4.5 3 in. AC / 4 in. AB
Auto Driveways 70 5.0 3 in. AC / 4 in. AB
Truck Driveways/Parking 70 8.0 4 in. AC / 8 in. AB
Note: AC = Asphalt Concrete AB = Aggregate Base
TABLE 4
Preliminary Structural Concrete Pavement Sections
Location Preliminary Design
R-value
Traffic
Index Pavement Section
Heavy Truck Driveways/Parking 70 8.0 6 in. PCC
Note: PCC = Portland Cement Concrete
Final pavement design recommendations should be provided based on sampling and testing at the completion of rough grading and the values of traffic indices that should be provided by the project civil engineer. Subgrade soils should be properly compacted, smooth, and non-yielding prior to pavement construction. The subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D 1557. 5148
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 21 ends

Aggregate base materials should be Crushed Aggregate Base, Crushed Miscellaneous Base, or Processed Miscellaneous Base conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). The base materials should be brought to uniform moisture near optimum moisture then compacted to at least 95 percent of the applicable maximum density standard as determined per ASTM D 1557. Asphaltic concrete materials and construction should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook.

Concrete Loading Docks

1. The slab subgrade should be graded such that it accommodates placement of 7-inch thick concrete pavement section. Subgrade compaction shall be no less than 95 percent relative compaction with reference to ASTM D 1557.

2. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below the slab should be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least optimum moisture content, but not overly wet.

3. The concrete pavement section should be a minimum 7 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers (both ways). The reinforcement should be properly positioned near the middle of the slabs.

4. Concrete shall exhibit an unconfined compressive strength of no less than 3,250 psi.

5. The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for equipment slab may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of the 2022 CBC) by the Structural Engineer based on his/her calculations, engineering experience and judgment.

Non-Pavement Exterior Concrete Flatwork
General
Near-surface compacted fill soils within the site are expected to exhibit an expansion index of 0 to 20, i.e. non-expansive. We recommend that all exterior concrete flatwork such as sidewalks, patio slabs, large decorative slabs, concrete subslabs that will be covered with decorative pavers within and adjacent to the site be designed by the project architect and/or structural engineer with consideration given to mitigating the potential cracking and uplift that can develop in soils exhibiting expansion index values that fall in the very low category.

The guidelines that follow should be considered as minimums and are subject to review and revision by the project architect, structural engineer and/or landscape consultant as deemed appropriate. 5149
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 22 ends

Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete walkways, patio-type slabs, large decorative slabs and concrete subslabs to be covered with decorative pavers should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less.

Reinforcement
All concrete flatwork having their largest plan-view panel dimension exceeding 10 feet should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers, both ways. Alternatively, the slab reinforcement may consist of welded wire mesh of the sheet type (not rolled) with 6x6/W1.4xW1.4 designation in accordance with the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI). The reinforcement should be properly positioned near the middle of the slabs.

The reinforcement recommendations provided herein are intended as guidelines to achieve adequate performance for anticipated soil conditions. The project architect, civil and/or structural engineer should make appropriate adjustments in reinforcement type, size and spacing to account for concrete internal (e.g., shrinkage and thermal) and external (e.g., applied loads) forces as deemed necessary.

Subgrade Preparation
Compaction
To reduce the potential for distress to concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas to a minimum depth of 12 inches (or deeper, as either prescribed elsewhere in this report or determined in the field) should be moisture conditioned to at least equal to, or slightly greater than, the optimum moisture content and then compacted to a relative compaction of no less than 90 percent. Where concrete public roads, concrete segments of roads and/or concrete access driveways are proposed, the upper 6 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to no less than 95 percent relative compaction.

Pre-Moistening
As a further measure to reduce the potential for concrete flatwork cracking, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. The moisture content of the soils should be approximately

1.2 times the optimum moisture content and penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade.

Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not considered feasible to achieve the above moisture conditions since this method would likely require construction of numerous earth berms to contain the water.

Therefore, moisture conditioning should be achieved with a light spray applied to the subgrade over a period 5150
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 23 ends

of few to several days just prior to pouring concrete. Pre-watering of the soils is intended to promote uniform curing of the concrete, reduce the development of shrinkage cracks and reduce the potential for differential expansion pressure on freshly poured flatwork. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils, and the depth of moisture penetration prior to pouring concrete.

Drainage
Drainage from patios and other flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent streets or other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should be sloped at a minimum gradient of one percent, or as prescribed by project civil engineer or local codes, away from building foundations, retaining walls, masonry garden walls and slope areas.

Tree Wells
Tree wells are not recommended in concrete flatwork areas since they introduce excessive water into the subgrade soils and allow root invasion, both of which can cause heaving and cracking of the flatwork.

GRADING, EXCAVATION AND STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEWS
This report is based on the existing site conditions and the current Gensler conceptual planning and massing exhibits. We recommend that our firm be retained to review the grading plan, basement wall plan and structural foundation plans once when they become available. Additional recommendations and/or modification of the recommendations provided herein will be provided if necessary, depending on the results of the plan reviews.

If additional or alternative improvements are considered in the future, our firm should be notified so that we may provide design recommendations. It is further recommended that we be engaged to review the final design drawings, specifications and grading plan prior to any new construction. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these documents with respect to the geotechnical aspects of new construction and grading, it should not be assumed that the recommendations provided herein are wholly or in part applicable to the proposed construction.

We recommend that Petra be retained to provide soil-engineering services during excavation, grading, construction and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design, 5151
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 24 ends

specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction.

REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the project site and our field explorations, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis performed to date. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory evaluations are believed representative of the total area; however, soil types, gravel and cobble percentages and soil moisture conditions can vary in characteristics between excavations, both laterally and vertically.

The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our professional judgment. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. In addition, this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of 1 year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein.

It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please contact this office.

Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.

Douglass Johnston Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Senior Associate Geologist Senior Principal Engineer
CEG 2477 GE 2024
DJ/SJ/MS/lv
W:\2020-2025\2022\300\22-398\Reports\22-398 110 Preliminary Geotechnical Evalutation.docx 5152
DRAFT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES February 10, 2023
Empire Resort & Spa Project / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 25 ends

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

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2023, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, accessed January, https://asce7hazardtool.online/ Bryant and Hart, E.W., W.A., 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision.

California Geologic Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: CGS Special Publication 117A.

California Geologic Survey, 2022, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, accessed December, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
California Department of Water Resources, 2022, Water Data Library, accessed December, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/
Engineering Association of California (SEAOC) and California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Seismic Design Maps, with ASCE 7-16 Design Code Reference Document, https://seismicmaps.org/
Gensler, 2023, Empire Resort & Spa, Conceptual Planning & Massing plans, dated January 9.

Geologismiki Software, Cliq V.3.0.1.6 liquefaction assessment software.

GeoTracker, 2022 accessed December, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Google Earth™ 2022, by Google Earth, Inc., accessed December, http://www.google.com/earth/index.html International Building Code, 2018, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Par 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2018 International Building Code, California Building Standards Commission.

Morton, D. M. and Matti, J. C., 2003, Geologic Map of the Cucamonga Peak 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, Version 1.0, U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 0-311.

Morton, D. M. and Miller, F. K., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, Version 1.0, Sheet 1 of 5, U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 03-293.

Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils: in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: Vol. 124, No. 4.

San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, 2010, General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays, Figure EHFH C, Victorville/San Bernardino, 1:115,200 scale.

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook), 2018 Edition, BNI Publishers.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987; Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking: in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861-879.

UC Santa Barbara Library, 2022, accessed December, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ 5153
DRAFT

FIGURES
5154
DRAFT
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
40880 County Center Drive, Suite M
Temecula, California 92591
PHONE: (951) 600-9271

COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA
Site Location Map
DATE: February 2023
J.N.: 22-398
Figure 1
Empire Resort & Spa Project

10.4 Acre Site
City of Ontario, California

SCIENCES
N
Reference: Google Earth, 2021 image
Site
5155
DRAFT
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
40880 County Center Drive, Suite M
Temecula, California 92591
Phone: (951) 600-9271

COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA
Exploration Location Map
Empire Resort & Spa Project

10.4 Acre Site
City of Ontario, California
DATE:

J.N.: 22-398
Figure 2
February 2023

SCIENCES
N
Reference: Google Earth, 9/15/22 Image
A
A’
Approximate Scale: 1” = 100’
Holt Blvd
Guasti Rd
Cucamonga Creek
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
SW-1
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
TP-11
TP-12
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-10
Approximate Tower Location
(Gensler, 1/9/23)
5156
DRAFT

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATION LOGS
(Borings, Test Pits, Seismic Line and CPT’s)
5157
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.
medium dense, no gravel.
with gravel.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Very light brown, dry, dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel, trace broken cobble.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM-ML): Red brown, dry, dense, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel.

Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, dry, dense, medium- to coarsegrained, trace gravel. very dense.
11 14
20 8
14 20
15 19
24 40
21 31
12 13
19 39
50/5"

2.1 1.8

1.0 4.0

2.5 2.6
110.0
113.8
DS
DS
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-1
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/12/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs/ 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE
5158
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 Light brown.

Light brown to brown.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to brown, dry, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.

Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, hard, fine-grained.
dry to slightly moist.

Sand (SP): Light gray to light brown, dry, dense, fine- to coarsegrained.

Clayey Sand (SC): Red brown, dry, hard, fine- to coarse-grained, trace silt.
: slightly moist.
19 30
50/5"
30 50/5"
38 50/2"
15 29
34 32
50/4"
15 23
22 15
23 34

2.3 3.7

3.5 9.8

8.4 3.5

14.5 105.2
117.7

CON, DS
DS
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-1
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/12/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs/ 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE
5159
DRAFT
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
Sandy Silt: Red brown, dry, hard, fine- to medium-grained, trace clay.

Silty Sand (SM): Light red brown.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to gray, dry, very dense, fineto medium-grained.

Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, dry, dense, fine- to coarse-grained. medium dense, fine- to medium-grained.

Light red brown, very dense, less silt.
trace gravel.

Total Depth = 101.5'
No ground water encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
14 16
24 10
19 24
20 29
32 15
18 26
15 16
24 15
24 28
17 24
40 11.6

5.6 14.0

6.4 6.2

5.9 Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-1
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/12/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs/ 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE
5160
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light red brown, dry to slightly moist, with gravel, trace cobble, trace asphalt pieces.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
(SM).

Silty Sand (SM): Light red brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense, trace gravel.
with gravel, little recovery possible due to cobble.

Sand w/ Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to gray, dry, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.

Sand (SP): Light gray, dry, dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, dry to slightly moist, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.
9 14
21 12
13 14
8 9
8 20
34 22
20 29
34 18
34 50

6.2 3.4

1.6 1.4

3.8 3.5
117.2
115.7
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-2
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 966±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/12/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130" lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-2
5161
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Red brown, dry to slightly moist, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.

Silty Sand (SM): Red brown to light gray, dry to slightly moist, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.
fine- to medium-grained.

Total Depth = 51.5'
No ground water encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
18 28
31 50/3"
24 38
38 50/6"

3.2 4.8

3.4 7.7
116.0
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-2
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 966±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/12/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130" lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-2
5162
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel, trace cobble.
medium dense, fine-grained, with gravel, no cobble.
light brown to gray, dense.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light Brown to gray, dry, very dense, fine-grained, with gravel.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, mediumto coarse-grained, trace gravel.

Orange brown, dense, no trace gravel.

Red brown, medium dense.
6 8
10 14
16 21
24 35
28 7
8 13
7 14
29 8
14 12

3.6 1.5

1.4 6.3

7.4 11.9
113.1 CON
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-3
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 958±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-3
5163
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 very dense, with gravel.

Light brown to tan.

Red brown.

Sandy Silt (ML): Red brown, dry to slightly moist, hard, finegrained.

Total Depth = 51.5'
No ground water encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
50/6"
34 50/5"
50/6"
17 18
21 2.6

4.7 4.3

12.7 118.1
ATT
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-3
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 958±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-3
5164
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ASPHALT (A/C)
4" Thick.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel.
medium dense.
dry to slightly moist, medium- to coarse-grained.

Light brown to tan, very dense, with gravel.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, slightly moist, medium dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.

Orange brown to tan, very dense, with gravel.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.
7 11
13 6
6 7
30 39
38 7
11 10
29 36
34 18
24 24

4.3 4.5

1.4 10.5

4.5 3.3
110.2
118.4
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-4
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 959±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-4
5165
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 Silty Sand (SM): Orange brown, dry to slightly moist, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.
medium dense.
dense.

Sandy Silt (ML): Red brown, slightly moist, very stiff, fine-grained.

Total Depth = 51.5'
No ground water encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
50/6"
16 16
14 12
16 30
5 10
17 2.8

4.7 5.3

18.7 119.2
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-4
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 959±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-4
5166
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel, trace cobble.

Light brown to brown, dense, no cobble, no gravel.

No recovery.
medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel, trace cobble.

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to gray, dry, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand (SM): Red brown to orange, dry to slightly moist, dense, medium- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.

No recovery.
12 16
22 12
16 32
12 21
23 23
40 40
13 21
19 30
50/5"

3.1 1.1

1.0 4.2
116.1
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-5
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-5
5167
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 very dense, no gravel.
with gravel.

Light red brown.

Total Depth = 51.5'
No ground water encountered
Backfilled with cuttings.
22 26
30 50/6"
19 50/3"
50/6"

2.8 2.3

3.1 3.8
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-5
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-5
5168
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, trace sand, trace gravel.
no gravel, no cobbles.

No recovery - loose gravel, trace cobble.

Light brown gray, dry, very dense, medium- to coarse-grained, with gravel, trace cobbles.

OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty Sand (SM): Red brown, slightly moist, dense.

Orange brown, medium dense, no gravel.

Light orange brown, very dense, with gravel, trace cobble. 14 16
24 16
19 26
15 18
32 14
17 23
12 8
7 50/6"

2.9 1.3

9.2 6.9

2.0 112.8
121.2 DS
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-6
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 963±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-6
5169
DRAFT
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 No recovery.
very dense.

Red brown, slightly moist, dense, fine- to medium-grained, no gravel.

Sandy Silt (ML): Orange brown, slightly moist, hard, fine-grained.

Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, dense, medium- to coarse-grained.
20 31
41 50"6
10 12
19 14
28 44
12 23
32 48
50/6"

5.4 9.5

9.9 4.8

6.4 112.6
118.6
112.5
CON
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: B-6
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 963±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/13/22 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 130 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-6
5170
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%).

Sand (SP): Light brown to gray, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%).

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Orangish brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel.
moist.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

MAX, EI, MA,
pH., CL, SO4
RES
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-1
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 967±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-7
5171
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobbles.

Sand (SP): Light brown to gray, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Orangeish brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel. slightly moist.
with 3-4" cobbles (15-25%), trace 8-12" cobbles.
minor caving.

Total Depth = 15'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered.

MA
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-2
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 965±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-8
5172
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (20-30%), with 3-4" cobbles (20-30%).

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles. dry to slightly moist.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-3
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 961±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-9
5173
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Orangish-brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobble.
with gravel (10-20%), with 4-6" cobble (15-25%).

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Brown to gray, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel, no cobbles.
trace cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-4
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 965±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-10
5174
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to orange, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (20-30%),trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to orange, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles. trace cobbles.
minor caving.

Total Depth = 15'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered.

MA, pH, CL,
SO4, RES
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-5
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 961±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-11
5175
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (10-20%), trace cobble.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Brown to gray, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel, no cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-6
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 956±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-12
5176
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (10-20%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-7
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 961±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-13
5177
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel.

Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (10-20%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
silty Sand (SM): Light Brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles. with cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

MA
Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-8
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 962±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-14
5178
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-9
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 965±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-15
5179
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel (10-20%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles.

Light brown, with gravel (10-15%), trace cobbles.
with 4-6" cobbles (20-30%).
minor caving.

Total Depth = 15'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-10
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 970±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-16
5180
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobbles.
12" concrete chunk, 18" asphalt chunk.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, dry, fine- to mediumgrained, with gravel, no cobbles. trace cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-11
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 959±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-17
5181
DRAFT
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Orange to brown, dry, fine- to medium-grained, with gravel (20-30%), trace cobbles.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
Silty Sand (SM): Brown to gray, dry, fine- to medium-grained, trace gravel, no cobbles.

Total Depth = 8'
Trench backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
No caving.

Project: Ontario Hotel Boring No.: TP-12
Location: E Holt Blvd. at E Guasti Rd. Elevation: 966±
Job No.: 22-398 Client: Diversified Pacific Date: 12/27/22 Drill Method: Backhoe Driving Weight: Logged By: SS
Depth
(Feet)
Lithology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.

Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.

PLATE A-18
5182
________________________________________________________ DRAFT
TG Project No. 223907-1
Client: Petra Geosciences, Inc. Petra Job No. 22-398
Project Name: Ontario Hotel Project, Ontario, California Survey Line End Coordinates: 34.064180, -117.602930 / 34.064255, -117.602331 Date: 12/30/22
SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY MODEL: Average Vs 100ft = 1,405.6 ft/sec Site Classification (ASCE 7-16 Ch. 20)- "C" (“Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”) 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
Depth (ft)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
S-wave velocity (ft/s)
992

8.2 1010

17.7 1139

28.4 1333

40.4 1552

53.7 1798

68.2 1686

84.0 1760
101.1
1870
119.4
1835
139.0
1740
159.9
1681
182.0
1705
205.4
1730
SEISMIC LINE SW-1

SHEAR-WAVE MODEL
5183
DRAFT

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
Prepared by:

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
5415 Industrial Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518
Office (714) 901-7270 / Fax (714) 901-7289
www.kehoetesting.com
Project:
2236 E. Holt Blvd.

Ontario, CA
December 29, 2022
Prepared for:

Mr. Doug Johnston
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
40880 County Center Drive, Ste M
Temecula, CA 92591
Office (951) 600-9271 / Fax (951) 600-9215
5184
DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION

APPENDIX
• CPT Plots
• CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart
• Summary of Shear Wave Velocities
• CPT Data Files (sent via email)
5185
DRAFT

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the project located at 2236 E. Holt Blvd. in Ontario, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on December 29, 2022. The scope of work was performed as directed by Petra Geosciences, Inc. personnel.

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at five locations to determine the soil lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1.

LOCATION

DEPTH OF
CPT (ft) COMMENTS/NOTES:

CPT-1 1 Refusal
CPT-1A 10 Refusal
CPT-1B 10 Refusal
CPT-2 13 Refusal
CPT-3 24 Refusal
TABLE 2.1 - Summary of CPT Soundings

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (D5778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm^2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals:
• Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination
• Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed
• Dynamic Pore Pressure (u)
At locations CPT-1A, CPT-2 and CPT-3, shear wave measurements were obtained at various depths. The shear wave is generated using an air-actuated hammer, which is located inside the front jack of the CPT rig. The cone has a triaxial geophone, which recorded the shear wave signal generated by the air hammer.
5186
DRAFT
The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for up to 2 years for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly.

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot (Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water pressures.

The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters.

It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data should be used to infer the soil behavior type.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at (714) 901-7270.

Sincerely,

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
Steven P. Kehoe
President
01/03/23-aga-4983
5187
DRAFT

APPENDIX
5188
DRAFT
Project: Petra Geosicences
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2236 E. Holt Blvd, Ontario, CA Total depth: 0.99 ft, Date: 12/29/2022 CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 00 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -10 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 41 21 086420 1 81 6
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/30/2022, 10:36:50 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Petra-Ontario12-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 5189
DRAFT
Project: Petra Geosicences
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2236 E. Holt Blvd, Ontario, CA Total depth: 10.64 ft, Date: 12/29/2022 CPT-1A
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 00 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -10 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 41 21 086420 1 81 6
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/30/2022, 10:36:50 AM 2 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Petra-Ontario12-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 5190
DRAFT
Project: Petra Geosicences
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2236 E. Holt Blvd, Ontario, CA Total depth: 10.90 ft, Date: 12/29/2022 CPT-1B
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 00 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -10 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 41 21 086420 1 81 6
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/30/2022, 10:36:50 AM 3 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Petra-Ontario12-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 5191
DRAFT
Project: Petra Geosicences
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2236 E. Holt Blvd, Ontario, CA Total depth: 13.52 ft, Date: 12/29/2022 CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 00 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -10 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 41 21 086420 1 81 6
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/30/2022, 10:36:51 AM 4 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Petra-Ontario12-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 5192
DRAFT
Project: Petra Geosicences
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2236 E. Holt Blvd, Ontario, CA Total depth: 24.61 ft, Date: 12/29/2022 CPT-3
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 00 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -10 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 41 21 086420 1 81 6
Depth (ft)
2 4
2 2
2 0
18 1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/30/2022, 10:36:52 AM 5 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Petra-Ontario12-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 5193
DRAFT
5194
DRAFT
Petra Geosciences
2236 E. Holt Blvd.

Ontario, CA
CPT Shear Wave Measurements
S-Wave Interval
Tip Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave
Depth Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity
Location (ft) (ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
CPT-1A 4.99 3.99 4.46 2.96 1508

10.01 9.01 9.23 7.14 1293 1140
CPT-2 5.02 4.02 4.49 3.08 1458

10.01 9.01 9.23 7.60 1214 1049

13.55 12.55 12.71 10.60 1199 1160
CPT-3 5.02 4.02 4.49 3.32 1352

10.01 9.01 9.23 7.46 1237 1145

15.03 14.03 14.17 12.28 1154 1025

20.01 19.01 19.11 17.56 1089 936

24.67 23.67 23.75 20.76 1144 1450
Shear Wave Source Offset - 2 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) 5195
DRAFT

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
5196
DRAFT ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 22-398

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Soil Classification
Soils encountered within the exploration borings were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and the classifications revised if appropriate. The assigned group symbols are presented on the exploration logs, Appendix A.

In Situ Moisture and Density
Moisture content and dry density of the in place soils were determined in representative strata in the borings in accordance with test method ASTM D 2216. Test data are presented in the boring logs, Appendix A.

Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on a selected sample of soil in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The expansion potential classification was determined from 2019 CBC Section 1802.3.2 on the basis of the expansion index value.

The test result and expansion potentials are presented on Plate B-1.

Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4318. Test results are presented on Plate B-1.

Soil Corrosivity
Chemical analyses were performed on a selected sample of soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are included on Plate B-1.

Laboratory Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the on-site soils were determined for a selected sample in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The result of this test is presented on Plate B-1.

Grain-Size Analysis
Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications performed in the field. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 422 or 1140. Test results are presented on Plate B-2 thru B-5.

Direct Shear
The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for undisturbed and disturbed (bulk) samples remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied normal loads at a maximum constant rate of strain of 0.05 inches per minute. Results are summarized on Plates B-6 thru B-10.

Consolidation
Volume change (settlement or heave) characteristics of select undisturbed soils were determined by one-dimensional consolidation tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with the latest version of the Test Method ASTM D 2435. Additionally, heave or hydro-consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with the latest version of Test Method ASTM D 4546, or ASTM D 5333 respectively. Axial loads were applied in several increments to laterally restrained 1-inch-high samples. The resulting deformations were recorded at selected time intervals. The test samples were inundated at the approximate in-situ and/or anticipated design overburden pressure in order to evaluate the effect of an increase in moisture content, e.g., hydro-consolidation potential or heave. Results of these tests are graphically presented on Plate B-11 thru B-13. 5197
DRAFT
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 22-398 PLATE B-1
(--) Tests Not Performed

LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
Boring/
Test Pit
Number
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Description1
Compaction2 Expansion3 Atterberg
Limits4 Corrosivity Screening Percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve8
Maximum Dry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Index Potential LL PL PI
Soluble
Sulfate
Content5
(%)
Chloride
Content6
(ppm)
pH7
(Acidity)
Minimum
Resistivity7
(Ohm-cm)
TP-1 4 Sily Sand 118.0 10.5 0 Very Low -- -- -- 0.002 262 7.8 5,000 22 TP-2 15 Sand with Silt -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 TP-5 15 Silty Sand -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.002 240 8.1 4,600 26 TP-8 2 Sand with Silt -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 B-5 50 Sandy Silt -- -- -- -- 28 22 6 -- -- -- -- --
Test Procedures: 1 Per Test Method ASTM D 2488 5 Per California Test Method CTM 417 2 Per Test Method ASTM D 1557 6 Per California Test Method CTM 422 3 Per Test Method ASTM D 4829 7 Per California Test Method CTM 643 4 Per Test Method ASTM D 4318 8 Per Test Method ASTM C 117 5198
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay

0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 14.9 60.4 22.2 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200

TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 4 Date Sampled: Sample Number: TP-1 Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure
Olive Brown Fine to Medium Sand with Silt
3 2

1.5 1
.75
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.7 99.3

98.6 97.5

93.5 82.6

71.6 45.3

32.3 22.2

0.6679 0.4953 0.1972

0.1645 0.0984
1/11/2023
DI
Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
22-398
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks
* (no specification provided)
B-2
5199
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay

0.0 18.1 14.9 6.3 22.1 31.8 6.8 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200

TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 15 Date Sampled: Sample Number: TP-2 Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure
Olive Brown Gravelly Fine to Medium Sand
3 2

1.5 1
.75
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100.0

98.6 92.3

86.2 81.9

72.9 67.0

60.7 52.3

38.6 30.4

15.1 10.9

6.8 33.6170 23.3855 1.7847

0.7510 0.2462 0.1496

0.0969 18.41 0.35
1/11/2023
DI
Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
22-398
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks
* (no specification provided)
B-3
5200
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay

0.0 16.2 6.9 3.6 19.3 27.6 26.4 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200

TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 15 Date Sampled: Sample Number: TP-5 Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure
Brown Gravelly Silty Fine to Medium Sand
3 2

1.5 1
.75
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100.0

97.9 93.4

86.5 83.8

79.8 76.9

73.3 66.4

54.0 43.6

35.3 30.7

26.4 31.6767 22.2486 0.5768

0.3480 0.1001
1/11/2023
DI
Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
22-398
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks
* (no specification provided)
B-4
5201
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay

0.0 1.0 2.4 1.7 30.8 55.4 8.7 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200

TEST RESULTS
Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 2 Date Sampled: Sample Number: TP-8 Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure
Brown Silty Fine to Medium Sand
3 2

1.5 1
.75
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.7 99.0

97.7 96.6

94.9 86.8

64.1 41.7

21.2 13.4

8.7 1.0115 0.7879 0.3841

0.3024 0.1907 0.1163

0.0834 4.60 1.13
1/11/2023
DI
Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
22-398
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks
* (no specification provided)
B-5
5202
DRAFT
Client: Diversified Pacific Communities
Project: Ontario Hotel
Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 5
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 22-398 Date Sampled:

Sample Type:

Description: Brown fine to coarse Sand with Silt
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:

Figure B-6
Sample No.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min. Initial At Test Shear Stress, ksf 0 0.25

0.5 0.75
1 1.25

1.5 Strain, %
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.

0.0075

0.005

0.0025
0 -0.0025
-0.005
-0.0075
Strain, %
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Dilation Consol.
12 3 Ult. Stress, ksf Fail. Stress, ksf
0 1
2 3
Normal Stress, ksf
0 1 2 3
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.

0.26 30.2

0.58 0.16

29.9 0.57
1 2.1
107.4

10.2 0.5410

2.42 1.01

20.4 107.4
100.0

0.5410

2.42 1.01

0.50 0.50

3.1 0.40

6.6 0.040
2 2.1
108.1

10.3 0.5310

2.42 1.00

20.0 108.1

99.7 0.5310

2.42 1.00

1.00 0.92

4.1 0.82

9.5 0.040
3 2.1
108.1

10.4 0.5310

2.42 1.01

20.0 108.1

99.6 0.5310

2.42 1.01

2.00 1.40

4.3 1.28

9.1 0.040
5203
DRAFT
Client: Diversified Pacific Communities
Project: Ontario Hotel
Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 20
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 22-398 Date Sampled: 12/21/2022
Sample Type:

Description: Yellowish brown Silty Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:

Figure B-7
Sample No.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min. Initial At Test Shear Stress, ksf 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.

0.015

0.01 0.005
0 -0.005
-0.01
-0.015
Strain, %
0 3 6 9 12
Dilation Consol.
1 2
3 Ult. Stress, ksf Fail. Stress, ksf
0 2
4 6
Normal Stress, ksf
0 2 4 6
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.

0.20 29.7

0.57 0.02

30.6 0.59
1 4.0
120.4

28.1 0.3738

2.42 1.02

13.4 120.4

95.2 0.3738

2.42 1.02

1.00 0.78

1.7 0.60

10.0 5.000
2 4.0
118.9

26.8 0.3912

2.42 1.01

14.7 118.9

99.5 0.3912

2.42 1.01

2.00 1.32

3.1 1.21

7.7 0.040
3 4.0
112.2

22.1 0.4744

2.42 1.01

17.8 112.2

99.2 0.4744

2.42 1.01

4.00 2.48

7.7 2.38

10.2 0.040
5204
DRAFT
Client: Diversified Pacific Communities
Project: Ontario Hotel
Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 55
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 22-398 Date Sampled:

Sample Type:

Description: Light olive brown Silty fine to medium
Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:

Figure B-8
Sample No.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min. Initial At Test Shear Stress, ksf 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.

0.015

0.01 0.005
0 -0.005
-0.01
-0.015
Strain, %
0 3 6 9 12
Dilation Consol.
1 2
3 Ult. Stress, ksf Fail. Stress, ksf
0 3
6 9
Normal Stress, ksf
0 3 6 9
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.

0.27 34.4

0.69 0

32.5 0.64
1 8.4
110.4

44.7 0.4979

2.42 1.02

18.7 110.4

99.5 0.4979

2.42 1.02

2.00 1.63

2.3 1.13

10.3 0.040
2 8.4

98.8 33.0

0.6752

2.42 1.01

25.3 98.8

99.2 0.6752

2.42 1.01

4.00 3.02

3.7 2.69

10.1 0.040
3 8.4
101.6

35.5 0.6277

2.42 1.02

23.5 101.6

99.2 0.6277

2.42 1.02

8.00 5.75

4.8 5.05

9.9 0.040
5205
DRAFT
Client: Diversified Pacific Communities
Project: Ontario Hotel
Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 65
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 22-398 Date Sampled:

Sample Type:

Description: Light brrown Silty fine to coarse Sand
Specific Gravity=
Remarks:

Figure B-9
Sample No.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min. Initial At Test Shear Stress, ksf 0 1.5
3 4.5
6 7.5
9 Strain, %
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.

0.015

0.01 0.005
0 -0.005
-0.01
-0.015
Strain, %
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Dilation Consol.
1 23 Ult. Stress, ksf Fail. Stress, ksf
0 3
6 9
Normal Stress, ksf
0 3 6 9
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.

0.94 32.5

0.64 0.24

31.4 0.61
1 14.5
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

2.00 2.15

1.9 1.45

8.7 0.040
2 14.5
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

4.00 3.58

2.3 2.69

9.9 0.040
3 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

8.00 6.00

3.3 5.11

9.7 0.040
5206
DRAFT
Client: Diversified Pacific Communities
Project: Ontario Hotel
Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 20
Sample Number: B-6
Proj. No.: 22-398 Date Sampled:

Sample Type:

Description:

Specific Gravity=
Remarks:

Figure B-10
Sample No.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.

Height, in.

0.03 0.02

0.01 0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
Strain, %
0 3 6 9 12
Dilation Consol.
1 2
3 Ult. Stress, ksf Fail. Stress, ksf
0 2
4 6
Normal Stress, ksf
0 2 4 6
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.

0.26 33.5

0.66 0.01

31.5 0.61
1 9.2
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

1.00 0.94

2.7 0.040
2 9.2
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

2.00 1.57

2.7 1.24

10.2 0.040
3 9.2
N/A
N/A
N/A

2.42 0.00
N/A

4.00 2.92

2.7 2.46

6.3 0.040
5207
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Percent Strain
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
-2
Applied Pressure - tsf

0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Gr. Overburden Pc Cc Cr
Initial Void
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (tsf) (tsf) Ratio

8.4 % 93.2 5.556584 13.6
Light olive brown Silty fine to medium Sand
22-398 Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
B-11

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 55 Sample Number: B-1
Figure
5208
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Percent Strain
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
-2
Applied Pressure - tsf

0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Gr. Overburden Pc Cc Cr
Initial Void
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (tsf) (tsf) Ratio

37.7 % 7.4 % 108.8 2.65 2.92128 13.1 0.08 0.02 0.520
Light brown Silty fine to coarse Sand
22-398 Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
B-12

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 25 Sample Number: B-3
Figure
5209
DRAFT Laboratory: 1251 West Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, Ca 92882 Phone #. 714.549.8921 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Percent Strain
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
-2
Applied Pressure - tsf

0.1 1 10
Water
Added
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Gr. Overburden Pc Cc Cr
Initial Void
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (tsf) (tsf) Ratio

71.2 % 9.9 % 121.0 2.65 6.64895 13.3 0.06 0.02 0.367
Yellowish brown Silty fine to coarse Sand
22-398 Diversified Pacific Communities
Ontario Hotel
B-13

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: 22L363 Depth: 50 Sample Number: B-6
Figure
5210
DRAFT

APPENDIX C

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
5211
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 1 ends

These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist of record (Geotechnical Consultant).

I. GENERAL
A. The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Geotechnical Consultant includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist signing the soils report.

B. The contractor should prepare and submit to the Owner and Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork to be performed prior to the commencement of grading.

This work plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to schedule personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing as necessary.

C. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor in accordance with the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.

D. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Geotechnical Consultant.

E. It is the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction to project specifications. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year.

F. After completion of grading a report will be submitted by the Geotechnical Consultant.

II. SITE PREPARATION
A. Clearing and Grubbing

1. All vegetation such as trees, brush, grass, roots, and deleterious material shall be disposed of offsite. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill.

2. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, etc., are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
5212
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 2 ends

III. FILL AREA PREPARATION
A. Remedial Removals/Overexcavations

1. Remedial removals, as well as overexcavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Remedial removal depths presented in the geotechnical report and shown on the geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the conditions exposed during grading. All soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant.

2. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.

3. Should potentially hazardous materials be encountered, the Contractor should stop work in the affected area. An environmental consultant specializing in hazardous materials should be notified immediately for evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing work in the affected area.

B. Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide sufficient survey control for determining locations and elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

C. Processing
After the ground surface to receive fill has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant, it shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the ground surface is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.

The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.

D. Subdrains
Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, and/or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given on Plate SG-1).

E. Cut/Fill & Deep Fill/Shallow Fill Transitions
In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill and deep fill/shallow fill transition lots, the cut and shallow fill portions of the lot should be overexcavated to the depths and the horizontal limits discussed in the approved geotechnical report and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plate SG-7.)
5213
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 3 ends

IV. COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL
A. General
Materials excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material to be used for fill shall be essentially free of organic material and other deleterious substances. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.

Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

B. Oversize Materials
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches in diameter, shall be taken offsite or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (Typical details for Rock Disposal are given on Plate SG-4).

Rock fragments less than 12 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided, they are not nested or placed in concentrated pockets; they are surrounded by compacted fine grained soil material and the distribution of rocks is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.

C. Laboratory Testing
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.

D. Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material should meet the requirements of the previous section. The import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 2 working days prior to importing so that appropriate tests can be performed and its suitability determined.

V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
A. Fill Layers
Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer.

The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
5214
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 4 ends

B. Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture content.

C. Compaction
Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557- 02, will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report.

D. Failing Areas
If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.

E. Benching
All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.

VI. SLOPES
A. Fill Slopes
The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure that produces the required compaction.

B. Side Hill Fills
The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-5.) C. Fill-Over-Cut Slopes
Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill. (see detail on Plate SG-6).
5215
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 5 ends

D. Landscaping
All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report.

E. Cut Slopes

1. The Geotechnical Consultant should observe all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet.

2. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG-2 and SG-3.).

3. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.

4. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.

5. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.

VII. GRADING OBSERVATION
A. General
All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready.

B. Compaction Testing
Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultants discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations may be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be susceptible to inadequate compaction.

C. Frequency of Compaction Testing
In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved.
5216
DRAFT

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

Page 6 ends

VIII. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.

B. Upon completion of grading and termination of observations by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.

C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.

S:\!BOILERS-WORK\REPORT INSERTS\STANDARD GRADING SPECS
5217
DRAFT
5218
DRAFT
5219
DRAFT
5220
DRAFT
5221
DRAFT
5222
DRAFT
5223
DRAFT
5224
DRAFT
5225
DRAFT
5226
Empire Groves Hotel

GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CITY OF ONTARIO
PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]
Ali Dadabhoy
[email protected]
Shannon Wong
[email protected]
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
15693-02 GHG Report
5227
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 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 ......................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1 ES.2 Project Requirements ................................................................................................................... 1 ES.3 Mitigation Measure ...................................................................................................................... 2 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 4 2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING ......................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change (GCC) .............................................................................. 8

2.2 Global Climate Change Defined .................................................................................................... 8

2.3 GHGs ............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) ............................................................................................... 15

2.5 GHG Emissions Inventories ......................................................................................................... 15

2.6 Effects of Climate Change in California ....................................................................................... 16

2.7 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 18 3 PROJECT GHG IMPACT .............................................................................................................. 43

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43

3.2 Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................ 43

3.3 Models Employed To Analyze GHGs ........................................................................................... 44

3.4 Life-Cycle Analysis Not Required ................................................................................................ 44

3.5 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................... 45

3.6 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 47

3.7 GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 49 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 51 5 CERTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 56 5228
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
ii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
APPENDIX 3.2: CCAP SCREENING TABLES

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 6 EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT, 2070-2099 (AS COMPARED WITH 1961-1990) .................................................................................................................. 14

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 TABLE 2-1: GHGS .................................................................................................................................. 9 TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS ........................................................ 15 TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ....................................... 16 TABLE 3-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION .............................................................................................. 45 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................... 45 TABLE 3-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ........................................................... 46 TABLE 3-4: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 49 5229
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 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
AQIA Empire Groves Hotel 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
CALGAPS California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board
CEC California Energy Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines CEQA Statute and Guidelines
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CF4 Tetrafluoromethane
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CFC-113 Trichlorotrifluoroethane
CH4 Methane
City City of Ontario
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CNRA 2009 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
5230
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
iv
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Convention United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change COP Conference of the Parties
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DWR Department of Water Resources
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
GCC Global Climate Change
Gg Gigagram
GHGA Greenhouse Gas Analysis
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
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO Independent System Operator
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh Kilowatt Hours
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
MDT Medium-Duty Trucks
5231
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
v
MDV Medium-Duty Vehicles
MHDT Medium-Heavy-Duty Tucks
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
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PFC Perfluorocarbons
ppb Parts Per Billion
ppm Parts Per Million
ppt Parts Per Trillion
Project Empire Groves Hotel
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
5232
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
vi
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
Scoping Plan California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square Feet
SF6 Sulfur Hexaflouride
SLPS Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
SP Service Population
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 VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WRI World Resources Institute
ZE/NZE Zero and Near-Zero Emissions
ZEV Zero-Emissions Vehicles
5233
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
vii
This page intentionally left blank
5234
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 3 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) (1).

Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (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?

3.7 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?

3.7 Less Than Significant n/a
ES.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
The Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the City of Perris 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).
5235
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
2 Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions (8).

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010 and 33% by 2020. SB 350 mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. SB 100 increased the RPS requirements to 60% by 2030 with new interim targets of 44% by 2024 and 52% by 2027 (9).

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 (10).

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 are accounted for in the Project’s emission calculations.

ES.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
PDFGHG-1
Project development proposals shall implement Screening Table Measures that achieve the requisite points per the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the requisite points are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable).

The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Alternatively, the Project shall demonstrate that annual GHG emissions would not exceed the target thresholds or other alternative compliance mechanisms in the CCAP or subsequent updates. Appendix 3.2 includes the CCAP Screening Tables measures anticipated to be implemented by the proposed Project.
5236
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
3 This page intentionally left blank
5237
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
4 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the GHGA prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Empire Groves Hotel Project (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 site is located at the northeast corner of Holt Boulevard and Guasti Road in the City of Ontario, as shown in Exhibit 1-A.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of a hotel that includes 600 rooms and suites, 2 ballrooms, a spa & fitness center, meeting and conference rooms as well as an outdoor pool and event lawn on 10.43 acres.

A preliminary site plan for the proposed hotel development is shown on Exhibit 1-B. The Project will be developed within a single phase with an anticipated opening year of 2025. 5238
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
5 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
5239
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
6 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
5240
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
7 This page intentionally left blank
5241
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
8 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 3 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 radiative 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 as discussed in Table 2-1. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2Owere evaluated 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 fluorinated gases were 5242
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
9 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. 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 feedback loop
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.
5243
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
10 GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
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)
(11).

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 (12).

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
(13).

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 (14).
5244
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
11 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
(15).

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) (16).
5245
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
12 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
(16).

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. (17).

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.
5246
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
13 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) (18). 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.
5247
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
14 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 (19).

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 (20).

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. Exhibit 2-A presents the potential impacts of global warming (21).

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. 5248
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
15 2.4 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (GWP)
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 different GHGs in a common unit. CO2e signifies the amount of CO2 which would have the equivalent GWP.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. IPCC Assessment Reports cover the full scientific, technical and socio-economic assessment of climate change. 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 range from 1 for CO2 to 23,900 for SF6 and GWP for the 6th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to 25,200 for SF6 (22).

TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
GWP (100-year time horizon)
2nd Assessment Report 6
th Assessment Report
CO2 Multiple 1 1
CH4 11.8 21 28
N2O 109 310 273
HFC-23 228 11,700 14,600
HFC-134a 14 1,300 1,526
HFC-152a 1.6 140 164
SF6 3,200 23,900 25,200
Source: IPCC Second Assessment Report, 1995 and IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2022

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 2021. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,272,940 gigagram (Gg) CO2e1 (23) (24) 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 2021 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 2016, respectively. 5249
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
16 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 2021.

TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China 12,300,200
United States 6,340,228
European Union (27-member countries) 3,468,394
India 2,839,425
Russian Federation 2,156,599
Japan 1,168,094
Total 28,272,940

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 (16). The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2023 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000- 2021 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 381.3 million metric tons of CO2e per year (MMTCO2e/yr) or 381,300 Gg CO2e (6.01% of the total United States GHG emissions) (25).

Based on data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s per capita (9.12 metric tons) GHG emissions are much less than the nationwide per capita (15.8 metric ton) average (26).

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 (27).

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 5250
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
17 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. 5251
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
18 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.
5252
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
19 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. 5253
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
20 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) (28).

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 5254
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
21 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 wellmixed 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 (29).

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). In August 2012, 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. The new standards 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 accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle 5255
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
22 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 (30). 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 (31). 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 (32).

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 (33).

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 Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule 5256
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
23 “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 GHG EMISSIONS 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. 5257
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
24 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 has retained all participating states as of 2020.

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 (34):

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 5258
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
25 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
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.

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.
5259
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
26 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 met2 ). 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.”
SB375
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 2 Based upon the 2023 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2021 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 381.3 MMTCO2e (25). This is less than the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e. This is less than the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e.
5260
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
27 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:
5261
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
28 Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 45% 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 (10).
2017 CARB SCOPING PLAN
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 (35).

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. 5262
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
29 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 nearzero 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 5263
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
30 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 (36) (37).

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 (38).

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 5264
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
31 is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.” (39) The Cap-and-Trade Program covers approximately 80% of California’s GHG emissions (35). 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.
2022 CARB SCOPING PLAN
On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) (40). The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan as well as the requirements set forth by AB 1279, which directs the state to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Scoping Plan scenario to do this is to “deploy a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes, Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor.” The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (CAP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.

The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation - the regulations that will impact this sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. As stated in the Plan’s executive summary:
“The major element of this unprecedented transformation is the aggressive reduction of fossil fuels wherever they are currently used in California, building on and accelerating carbon reduction programs that have been in place for a decade and a half. That means rapidly moving to zero-emission transportation; electrifying the cars, buses, trains, and trucks that now constitute California’s single largest source of planet-warming pollution.”
“[A]pproval of this plan catalyzes a number of efforts, including the development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place, not just at CARB but across state agencies.” Under the 2022 Scoping Plan, the State will lead efforts to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal through implementation of the following objectives:

Reimagine roadway projects that increase VMT in a way that meets community needs and reduces the need to drive.
5265
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
32 Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030.

Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by 2040.

Expand and complete planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure.

Increase availability and affordability of bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and other alternatives to lightduty vehicles, prioritizing needs of underserved communities.

Shift revenue generation for transportation projects away from the gas tax into more durable sources by 2030.

Authorize and implement roadway pricing strategies and reallocate revenues to equitably improve transit, bicycling, and other sustainable transportation choices.

Prioritize addressing key transit bottlenecks and other infrastructure investments to improve transit operational efficiency over investments that increase VMT.

Develop and implement a statewide transportation demand management (TDM) framework with VMT mitigation requirements for large employers and large developments.

Prevent uncontrolled growth of autonomous vehicle (AV) VMT, particularly zero-passenger miles.

Channel new mobility services towards pooled use models, transit complementarity, and lower VMT outcomes.

Establish an integrated statewide system for trip planning, booking, payment, and user accounts that enables efficient and equitable multimodal systems.

Provide financial support for low-income and disadvantaged Californians’ use of transit and new mobility services.

Expand universal design features for new mobility services.

Accelerate infill development in existing transportation-efficient places and deploy strategic resources to create more transportation-efficient locations.

Encourage alignment in land use, housing, transportation, and conservation planning in adopted regional plans (RTP/SCS and RHNA) and local plans (e.g., general plans, zoning, and local transportation plans).

Accelerate production of affordable housing in forms and locations that reduce VMT and affirmatively further fair housing policy objectives.

Reduce or eliminate parking requirements (and/or enact parking maximums, as appropriate) and promote redevelopment of excess parking, especially in infill locations.

Preserve and protect existing affordable housing stock and protect existing residents and businesses from displacement and climate risk.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects, in fact CARB states in Appendix D (page 4): “…focuses primarily on climate action plans 5266
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
33 (CAPs) and local authority over new residential development. It does not address other land use types (e.g., industrial) or air permitting.”
Additionally on Page 21 in Appendix D, CARB states: “The recommendations outlined in this section apply only to residential and mixed-use development project types. California currently faces both a housing crisis and a climate crisis, which necessitates prioritizing recommendations for residential projects to address the housing crisis in a manner that simultaneously supports the State’s GHG and regional air quality goals. CARB plans to continue to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.” As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

2.7.3.2 EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATED TO GHG EMISSIONS
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.
5267
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
34 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 (41).

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 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 5268
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
35 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. Twenty-three 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 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on 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 became 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 (42). 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 (43):

RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES
Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. New construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1,

4.106.4.2, 4.106.4.3, to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. (4.106.4).
o New one- and two-family dwellings and town-houses with attached private garages. For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location 5269
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
36 of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere 208/240-volt minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. o New hotels and motels. All newly constructed hotels and motels shall provide EV spaces capable of supporting future installation of EVSE. The construction documents shall identify the location of the EV spaces. The number of required EV spaces shall be based on the total number of parking spaces provided for all types of parking facilities in accordance with Table 4.106.4.3.1.

Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with Sections 4.303.1.1, 4.303.1.2, 4.303.1.3, and

4.303.1.4.

Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas. Residential 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.

Operation and maintenance manual. At the time of final inspection, a manual, compact disc, webbased reference or other media acceptable to the enforcing agency which includes all of the following shall be placed in the building:
o Directions to the owner or occupant that the manual shall remain with the building throughout the life cycle of the structure.
o Operations and maintenance instructions for the following:

Equipment and appliances, including water-saving devices and systems, HVAC systems, photovoltaic systems, EV chargers, water-heating systems and other major appliances and equipment.

Roof and yard drainage, including gutter and downspouts.

Space conditioning systems, including condensers and air filters.

Landscape irrigation systems.

Water reuse systems.
o Information from local utility, water and waste recovery providers on methods to further reduce future resource consumption, including recycling programs and locations. o Public transportation and/or carpool options available in the area. o Educational material on the positive impacts of an interior relative humidity between 30- 60% and what methods occupants may use to maintain the relative humidity level in that range.
o Information about water-conserving landscape and irrigation design and controllers which conserve water.
o Instructions for maintaining gutters and downspouts and the importance of diverting water at least 5 feet away from the foundation.
o Information about state solar energy and incentive programs available. o A copy of all special inspection verifications required by the enforcing agency of this code. o Information from CALFIRE on maintenance of defensible space around residential structures.
5270
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
37 Any installed gas fireplace shall be direct-vent sealed-combustion type. Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall comply with U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) emission limits as applicable, and shall have a permanent label indicating they are certified to meet the emission limits. Woodstoves, pellet stoves and fireplaces shall also comply with applicable local ordinances.

Paints and coatings. Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the CARB Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits apply. The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for the specialty coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be determined by classifying the coating as a Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat-high Gloss coating, based on its glass, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36, and 4.37 of the 2007 CARB, Suggested Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat, Nonflat-high Gloss VOC limit in Table 4.504.3 shall apply.

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 GHGREGULATION
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 dryvan 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 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 2HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GHG STANDARDS
In September 2011, CARB 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 5271
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
38 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 CEQA GUIDELINES 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.”
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 to 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 5272
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
39 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 (44).

2.7.4 REGIONAL
The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

SCAQMD
The 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.

The SCAQMD has been evaluating GHG significance thresholds since April 2008. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD has continued to consider then adoption of significance thresholds for projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:

Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.

Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying locally adopted GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.

Tier 3 consists of screening thresholds, 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 Option 1: Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Option 2: All non-indstural alnd uses: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Percent emission reduction target; this percentage is currently undefined. 5273
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
40 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 draft 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 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.

2.7.5 CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Ontario adopted the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) on December 16, 2014.

The CAP contains further guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The purpose of the CAP 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 (45). The CAP 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 City prepared its CAP 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 CAP, 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 City 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 Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 includes an update to the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP Update) which was adopted in 2014. The CCAP Update is a plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The update to the CCAP includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction 5274
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
41 goals of the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B-55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. As noted in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) certified by the City in 2022 (TOP 2050 SEIR), the measures included in the 2022 CCAP Update are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP.
5275
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
42 This page intentionally left blank
5276
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
43 3 PROJECT GHG IMPACT

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

3.2 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, the following questions are utilized to determine if a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG (46):

Would the project generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment (see Impact GHG-1)?
Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs (see Impact GHG-2)?
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both existing conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the Office of Planning and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) further states, “. . . A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use . . .; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, in assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions:

Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial 5277
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
44 evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

As noted above in Section 2.7.5, the update to the CCAP includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B-55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. As noted in the TOP EIR, the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP. Because the 2022 Update to the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, Projects that comply with the CCAP Update would have a less than significant GHG impact.

3.3 MODELS EMPLOYED TO ANALYZE GHGS

3.3.1 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR MODEL (CALEEMOD)
In August 2023, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts including the SCAQMD, released the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.22. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (47). 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 Appendix 3.1. CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water, and refrigerants.

3.4 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 (48). Life-cycle 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, an 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 (49). Additionally, the science to calculate life cycle emissions is not yet established or well defined; therefore, the SCAQMD has not recommended, and is not requiring, life-cycle emissions analysis.
5278
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
45 3.5 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project construction activities would generate CO2 and CH4 emissions. The Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) report contains detailed information regarding Project construction activities (50). As discussed in the AQIA, construction-related emissions are expected from the following activities:

Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating

3.5.1 CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence June 2026 and would last through September 2025. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table 3-1, represents a “conservative” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.3 The duration of
construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per the CEQA Guidelines (51).

TABLE 3-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Working Days
Site Preparation 6/3/2024 6/14/2024 10
Grading 6/17/2024 7/26/2024 30
Building Construction 7/29/2024 9/19/2025 300
Paving 8/25/2025 9/19/2025 20
Architectural Coating 5/19/2025 9/19/2025 90

3.5.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment listed in Table 3-2 is assumed to operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the City code.

TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
3 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022, Appendix G “Table G-11. Statewide Average Annual Offoad Equipment Emission Factors” 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. 5279
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
46 Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day 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 1 8
Building Construction
Forklifts 2 8
Generator Sets 3 8
Cranes 1 8
Welders 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8

3.5.3 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 (52). 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 3-3.

TABLE 3-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
4 2024 1,337.97 0.10 0.14 1.36 1,382.21
2025 1,213.29 0.07 0.09 1.46 1,241.89
Total GHG Emissions 2,551.26 0.17 0.22 2.82 2,624.10
Amortized Construction Emissions 85.04 5.65E-03 7.36E-03 9.40E-02 87.47 4 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.
5280
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
47 Source: CalEEMod annual construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1.

3.6 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and Refrigerant emissions from the following primary sources:

Area Source Emissions
Energy Source Emissions
Mobile Source Emissions
Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
Solid Waste
Refrigerants

3.6.1 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 landscaping of the Project. It should be noted that on 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, which is now effective. For purposes of analysis, the emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod.

3.6.2 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 lighting.5 GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project was calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.

3.6.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The Project related GHG emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project, including employee trips to and from the site associated with the proposed uses. Trip 5 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.
5281
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
48 characteristics available from the Empire Groves Hotel Traffic Analysis were utilized in this analysis (53).

3.6.4 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.

3.6.5 SOLID WASTE
The proposed 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.

3.6.6 REFRIGERANTS
Air conditioning (A/C) and refrigeration equipment associated with the buildings are anticipated to generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod automatically generates a default A/C and refrigeration equipment inventory for each project land use subtype based on industry data from the USEPA (2016b). CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. Note that CalEEMod does not quantify emissions from the disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment at the end of its lifetime. Per 17 CCR 95371, new facilities with refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant are prohibited from utilizing refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater as of January 1, 2022. Additionally, beginning January 1, 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater. GHG emissions associated with refrigerants were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.

3.6.7 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated Project-related GHG emissions are summarized in Table 3-4. Detailed operation model outputs for the Project are presented in Appendix 3.1. As shown in Table 3-4, construction and operation of the Project would generate approximately 9,661.88 MTCO2e/yr. 5282
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
49 TABLE 3-4: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 85.04 5.65E-03 7.36E-03 9.40E-02 87.47 Mobile Source 6302.52 0.32 0.32 10.69 6415.24
Area Source 22.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.10
Energy Source 2923.18 0.27 0.02 0.00 2936.99
Water Usage 21.21 0.50 0.01 0.00 37.19
Waste 29.31 2.93 0.00 0.00 102.55
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.33 60.33
Total CO2e (All Sources) 9,661.88
Source: CalEEMod output, See Appendix 3.1 for detailed model outputs.

3.7 GHGEMISSIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GHG -1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The purpose of the 2022 CCAP Update is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. Because the 2022 CCAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CAP Update fulfills the description of mitigation found in the State CEQA Guidelines.

The Project will implement Screening Table Measures that achieve the requisite points pursuant to PDF GHG-1. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the requisite points are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Alternatively, the Project shall demonstrate that annual GHG emissions would not exceed the target thresholds or other alternative compliance mechanisms in the CCAP or subsequent updates. As such, the Project would be consistent with the GHG Development Review Process’ requirement to achieve the requisite amount of points and thus the Project is considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions. Appendix 3.2 includes the CCAP Screening Tables measures anticipated to be implemented by the proposed Project. 5283
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
50 This page intentionally left blank
5284
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
51 4 REFERENCES

1. California Natural Resources Agency. 2023 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. s.l. : Association of Environmental Professionals, 2023.

2. California 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. Air Resources Board. Sustainable Communities. [Online] 2008. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/sustainable-communities-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. California 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. California 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. California Energy Commission. SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards. [Online] September 29, 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/.

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

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

11. 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.

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

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

14. 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.

15. 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..

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

17. 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.

18. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation for Reducting Sulfur Hexafluoride Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear. Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] May 7, 2014. 5285
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
52 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/mehl-arb-presentation-2014- wkshp.pdf.

19. 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/nitrogen-trifluoridenow-required-ghg-protocol-greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventories.

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

21. 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.

22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis.

Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis. [Online] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixthassessment-report-working-group-i/.

23. United Nations. Annex 1. [Online] 2023. https://di.unfccc.int/time_series.

24. —. GHG Profiles - Non-Annex I. [Online] 2023. http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1.

25. California Air Resources Board. 2023 GHG Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000-2021 Edition. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.

26. Energy Information Administration . [Online] https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=US.

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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

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

33. United States 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.

34. United States Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay. [Online] 2017. https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway.

35. 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. 5286
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
53 36. 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/.

37. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. [Online] 2015. https://eaei.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-7008e.pdf.

38. California Air Resources Board. Legal Disclaimer & User's Notice. [Online] April 2019. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade/ct_reg_unofficial.pdf.

39. —. Climate Change Scoping Plan. [Online] 2014.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.p df.

40. —. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

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

42. 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.

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

44. California Natural Resources Agency. 2023 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. s.l. : Association of Environmental Professionals, 2023.

45. Dudek. City of Ontario Climate Adaption Plan. [Online] 2014. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf.

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

47. ICF. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. [Online] August 2023. www.caleemod.com.

48. 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.

49. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. 2008.

50. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis . 2024.

51. California Natural Resources Agency. 2023 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. s.l. : Association of Environmental Professionals , 2023.

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

53. Translutions, Inc. Empire Groves Hotel Traffic Analysis. 2024.

54. United Nations. GHG Profiles - Non-Annex I. [Online] http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1.

55. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Prime Supplier Sales Volume, California, Annual. [Online] 2020. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_SCA_a.htm. 5287
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
54 56. World Resources Institute. This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters. [Online] March 2, 2023. https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top10-emitters. 5288
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
55 This page intentionally left blank
5289
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
56 5 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this GHG study report represent an accurate depiction of the GHG impacts associated with the proposed Empire Groves Hotel 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 Professionals
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 5290
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
5291
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
APPENDIX 3.1:

CALEEMOD PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
5339
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
APPENDIX 3.2:

CCAP SCREENING TABLES
5340
City of Ontario
25 Table 6. Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Fitness, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030 (Circle Applicable Project Points, 100 points minimum) Description Feature Project Points
Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Replacement of gas
appliance with efficient
electric appliance (select all
that apply)
Electric space heater 8
Electric water heater 10
Electric stove 4
Electric Dryer 4
Electric pool heater 2
Electric spa heater 2
Lack of natural gas
infrastructure
Project site does not have any
natural gas infrastructure.
8 Total for measure 34
Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for all other non-residential land use types (required for all other non-residential projects)21
Installation of rooftop solar
energy systems at new nonresidential buildings (select one option)
Installation of rooftop solar energy
system which generates enough
electricity to meet 45% of annual
electricity demand.
3 Installation of rooftop solar energy
system which generates enough
electricity to meet 90% of annual
electricity demand.
6 Installation of battery storage
at new non-residential
buildings (select one option)
Solar battery storage installation
with a capacity of 200-799 kW
(DC).
1 Solar battery storage installation
with a capacity of 800-1200 kW
(DC).
2 Total for measure 8
Reduction Measure 3: Green Roofs
Installation of a roof with a
planted layer of vegetation
over a waterproof surface for
non-residential buildings
(select one option)
Medium Green Roof – Total
vegetated area makes up 50% of
combined non-residential floor
area (in square feet).
1 Large Green Roof – Total
vegetated area makes up 100% or
2 21 Measure 2 requires solar photovoltaic panels or other appropriate onsite renewable energy generation systems for the following types of projects:

New commercial and office buildings, or existing commercial and office building expansions greater or equal to 45,000 square feet in size and
New industrial or existing industrial buildings expansions greater or equal to 100,000 square feet in size.
5341
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables
26 Description Feature Project Points
more of combined non-residential
floor area (in square feet).

Total for measure 2
Reduction Measure 4: Urban Cooling
On-site tree planting (select
one option)22
1 tree per each required on-site
vehicle parking space.
6 2 trees per each required on-site
vehicle parking space.
12 3 trees per each required on-site
vehicle parking space.
18 Total for measure 18
Reduction Measure 5: Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs) New development is located
in a transit-oriented
community (TOC)
Development site is located within
½ mile radius of one or more of the
following: a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
stop, bus transit center, light rail
station, the intersection of two or
more major bus routes with a
frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning
and afternoon peak commute
periods, and/or High-Quality Transit
Corridor defined as a corridor with
fixed route bus service with service
intervals no longer than 15 minutes
during peak commute hours.23
2 Total for measure 2
Reduction Measure 6: Increase Transit Ridership
Provision of free transit passes
in a quantity equivalent to the
expected number of
employees at the nonOne free annual transit pass for
every employee.
6 22 This strategy specifies the ratio of additional trees per required vehicle parking spaces. Based upon total on-site vehicle parking spaces required per the City of Ontario Development Code for the project, the Applicant will calculate the number of trees required to meet this measure and obtain points. The landscape plan will show onsite trees and the tree matrix shall identify all trees associated with the Urban Cooling Measure compliance. The City code requires trees onsite and within paved areas to reduce the associated heat build-up from development. The Landscape Planning Division will consider these trees in the calculation to be counted toward the Urban Cooling Measure.
23 A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.
5342
City of Ontario
27 Description Feature Project Points
residential building. Transit
passes shall be provided for a
period of 5 years after
completion of construction 24
Total for measure 6
Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification25
Installation of EV charging
stations for employee vehicle
parking spaces (select one
option)
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV
charging stations at a rate of 5-9%
of planned employee vehicle
parking spaces.
3 Installation of Level 2 or higher EV
charging stations at a rate of 10-
19% of planned employee vehicle
parking spaces with Level 2 EV
charging stations.
5 Installation of Level 2 or higher EV
charging stations at a rate of 20%
or more of planned employee
vehicle parking spaces Level 2 EV
charging stations.
10 Total for measure 10
Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
Installation or improvement of
bicycle facilities (select all that
apply)
Bicycle parking facilities with 1:20
ratio of bicycle parking to
employee vehicle parking space
3 Construct or improve a single
bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II,
or IV) that 1) connects to a larger
existing bikeway network or 2)
closes an existing bikeway network
gap that is at least 0.5 miles long.
4 Installation or improvement of
pedestrian facilities (select one
option)
Two or three pedestrian
infrastructure improvements to
street design on private streets,
including, but not limited to curb
extensions, raised crosswalks, speed
humps/bumps, street tree plantings
in parkways or street medians, and
elevated pavement markings.
4 Four or more pedestrian
infrastructure improvements to
8 24 Provision for annual transit passes to be incorporated into CC&R’s bylaws or separate parking agreement, as appropriate.
25 EV charging station levels 1-3 are defined in the California Green Building Standards or CALGreen Code, accessed at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen. 5343
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables
28 Description Feature Project Points
street design on private streets,
including, but not limited to curb
extensions, raised crosswalks, speed
humps/bumps, street tree plantings
in parkways or street medians, and
elevated pavement markings.

Total for measure 15
Reduction Measure 9: Parking Policy
Require that employee vehicle
parking spaces be purchased
at an additional cost. This does
not include client/visitor
vehicle parking spaces 26
Unbundle, or separate, 100% of
non-residential project’s parking
costs from property costs, requiring
those who wish to purchase
parking spaces to do so at an
additional cost.
1 Total for measure 1
Reduction Measure 10: Electric construction equipment27 Use electric construction
equipment for a portion of the
construction project (select
one option)
One-third (33%) of construction
equipment used for construction
(during building phase, not
including grading phase),
measured by number of hours of
operation, is zero emission
equipment.
4 Half (50%) of construction
equipment used for construction
(during the building phase, not
including the grading phase),
measured by the number of hours
of operation, is zero emission
equipment.
7 Two-thirds (66%) or more of
construction equipment used for
construction (during the building
phase, not including the grading
phase), measured by number of
hours of operation, is zero emission
equipment.
11 Total for measure 11
26 Provision to unbundle parking shall be incorporated into CC&R’s bylaws or separate parking agreement, as appropriate.
27 Electric construction equipment includes electric compact excavators, electric motors, electric generators, and mobile charging equipment.
5344
City of Ontario
29 Description Feature Project Points
Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
Design and plan commercial,
office, and industrial
developments to include
onsite areas for municipal
compost/green waste and
recycling bins
Site design allocates sufficient
space for storage and collection of
green waste, organic waste, and
recyclables.
30 Total for measure 30
Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
Implement indoor water
efficiency measures (select all
that apply)
Install water-efficient faucets and
showerheads.
3 Install on-demand water circulators
on commercial sinks or dishwashing
equipment.
3 Incorporate outdoor water
efficiency measures
Design and plan outdoor
landscapes planted with droughttolerant, low maintenance plants with a 1) drip irrigation system or 2)
sprinkler irrigation system with a
weather-based irrigation controller.
8 Total for measure 14
Commercial/etc. Total for all measures 151
Commercial/etc. Project Points Subtotal
Additional Recommended Measures
AR-1: Meet CalGreen
voluntary tiers (selected one)
CalGreen Tier 1 compliance 5
CalGreen Tier 2 compliance 10
AR-2: Recycled Water Use recycled water for at least 80% of outdoor water needs
5 AR-3: Reflective Paving Use high-reflectivity pavement for all hardscaped areas, including
parking areas, walking paths, and
patios.
5 AR-4: Zero Emission Cargo
Equipment
Use of zero emission offroad cargo
handling equipment for a minimum
of 50% of building phase (measured
in number of hours).
4 AR-5: Alternative Fueling
conduit
Installation of conduit for zero
emission vehicle charging so that
facilities are prepared for the
transition to electric fleets.
4 AR-6: Alternative Fueling
Facility
Installation of alternative fuel
facilities, such as CNG, biofuels, or
hydrogen fueling stations.
8 5345
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables
30 Description Feature Project Points
Total additional recommended
measures
36 Commercial/etc. Project Points
Subtotal
Total Commercial/etc. Points Possible 187
COMMERCIAL/etc. PROJECT POINTS TOTAL
5346
Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15693-03 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
5347
Appendix H
Hydrology Report/WQMP
5348
Preliminary Hydrology Report
for
Diversified Empire Hotel
APN: 0110-322-33
Southeast of Holt Blvd and Guasti Road
OCTOBER 2023
PREPARED FOR:

Diversified Pacific Communities
10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
PREPARED BY:
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 543-9868
Copyright © 2022 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

KHA Project # 195256007
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 5349
2 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Certification by Engineer
______________________________________ __________
Robert Otte, PE Date
5350
3 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 5 Location ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6 Drainage Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 7 FEMA Mapping ................................................................................................................................ 7 Pre-development Condition ............................................................................................................. 7 Post-Development Condition ........................................................................................................... 7 Stormwater Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 8 Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 9 Appendices
Appendix A - Location Map ....................................................................................................... 10 Appendix B - FIRM MAP ........................................................................................................... 11 Appendix C - Hydrology Manual Reference Material ................................................................. 12 Appendix D - NOAA RaiN Data ................................................................................................. 13 Appendix E - Web Soils Report ................................................................................................. 14 Appendix F - Reference As-Built Plans ..................................................................................... 15 Appendix G - Existing and Proposed Drainage Maps ................................................................ 16 Appendix H - Rational Method Analysis .................................................................................... 17 Appendix I - Unit Hydrograph Analysis ...................................................................................... 18 Appendix J - Basin Routing Analysis ......................................................................................... 19 Appendix K - Sizing Calculations .............................................................................................. 20 Appendix L - Hydraulic Calculations .......................................................................................... 21 Appendix M - Excerpt from Geotechnical Report ....................................................................... 22 5351
4 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Tables
Table 1: Pre-Development Flows ............................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Post-Development Flows (Un-mitigated) ...................................................................... 8 Table 3: Proposed 100-year Final (Mitigated) Flows vs. Existing Flows ..... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figures
Figure 1: Location Map .............................................................................................................. 6 References
San Bernardino Hydrology Manual, August 1986.
5352
5 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023

INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn and Associates has been retained to prepare a Preliminary Hydrology Report for the proposed Diversified Empire Hotel in Ontario, California. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate preliminary analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions associated with the development of the project site. To do so, the following is the scope of this report:
 Discuss the pre-development discharge patterns and points  Discuss the post-development discharge patterns and points  Determine the offsite flow rates for the 10-year and 100-year events  Determine the pre-development onsite flow rates for the 10-year and 100-year events  Determine the post-development un-mitigated flow rates for the 10-year and 100-year events  Determine required post-development onsite mitigation for the 100-year event Even though this report discusses stormwater, this report is not a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a Groundwater Study, a Geotechnical Report, nor a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Each of these separate reports discusses separate aspects of stormwater. Portions of the Geotechnical Report are utilized and referenced for the purpose of this report. Similarly, the requirements of the WQMP are considered for the stormwater mitigation and sizing of outlet structures for this project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The existing vacant lot will be developed into the proposed Diversified Empire Hotel. The proposed development will include a hotel with 11 levels, loading docks, pools, above and below ground parking, offices, ballrooms, lobbies, courtyards, storage rooms, kitchens, etc. Site improvements will include landscaping, concrete hardscape, and asphalt paving. The associated improvements include, but are not limited to onsite grading, domestic water service, sanitary sewer service, storm drain infrastructure, concrete and asphalt pavement, landscaping, and irrigation. The project site is approximately 10.43 acres and is located in the City of Ontario, within San Bernadino County. The APN for the project site area: is 0110-322-33. Appendix A contains an aerial photograph that depicts the project location.

LOCATION
The site is located in the southeast corner of Holt Blvd and Guasti Road in the City of Ontario, within San Bernardino County. The project site is bordered by Ontario Gateway Hotel to the west, Holt Blvd to the north, Cucamonga Creek Channel to east, and the Ontario airport to the south. For reference see Appendix A and Figure 1 for the Location Map.
5353
6 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP

METHODOLOGY
The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were completed following the methods outlined in the San Bernadino County Hydrology Manual. The rational method was used to estimate time of concentrations and peak flow rates generated from the existing and proposed 10-year and 100-year storm events. The synthetic unit hydrograph method was used to determine the onsite existing and proposed hydrographs for the 24-hour duration of the 100-year storm event. The CivilDesign (CivilD) Engineering Software – 2018 Version 9.0 was used to complete the rational method and synthetic unit hydrograph analyses. The results of the rational method analyses are included in Appendix H and the results of the synthetic unit hydrograph analyses are included in Appendix I. Complete onsite and offsite drainage system analyses will be provided in the Final Hydrology Report.

The rainfall data used for the analyses is important for the flow and runoff results. NOAA Atlas 14 for Ontario, CA was used for the rational method and unit hydrograph analysis. See Appendix D and F for rainfall data.

The type of soil and soil conditions are major factors affecting infiltration/detention and resultant storm water runoff. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has classified soil into one general hydrologic soil group for comparing infiltration and runoff rates. The group is based on properties that influence runoff, such as water infiltration rate, texture, natural discharge, and moisture condition. The runoff potential is based on the amount of runoff at the end of a long duration storm that occurs after wetting and swelling of SITE
5354
7 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
the soil not protected by vegetation. Using the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey online tool, it was determined that the hydrologic soil group classification onsite is A. Soil type A is defined as soils having high infiltration rates (low runoff potential).

Similarly, per the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc. dated April 24, 2023, the site is considered to have good percolation rates, with the observed an design percolation rate of 15.38 in/hr. See Appendix D and L for the soil information.

In addition, antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II was used to calculate the 10-year peak flows and AMC III was used to calculate the 100-year peak flows based on the hydrology manual. The land use for the proposed drainage subareas were selected based on the characteristics of the proposed development. See

DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS

FEMA MAPPING
The site is mainly located in Zone X-unshaded and Zone X-shaded per the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 06071C8628J, dated February 18, 2015. Flood Zone X-unshaded is defined by FEMA to have minimal flood hazard. Flood Zone X-shaded is defined by FEMA to have a 0.2% annual change flood hazard, and areas of 1% annual chance flood average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. For reference, see Appendix B, FIRM Map.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION
The existing site is currently vacant, approximately 10.43 acres, and generally drains in the southeast direction. The existing site consists of two main drainage area (DA 1 & DA 2). Runoff for DA 1 flow southeast towards Guasti Road. Guasti Road does not have existing curb and gutter for the side of the road adjacent to the project but does have curb and gutter on the other side of the road with an existing catch basin.

Guasti Road also has a 108” public line that collects stormwater for nearby properties. DA 2 runoff flows to the east towards the Cucamonga Channel. See Appendix G for the existing hydrology map, Appendix H for the rational method calculations, and Table 1 below for a summary of the pre-development flows.

Table 1: Pre-Development Flows
Drainage Area Drainage Area (AC) Q10 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
DA 1 9.00 7.04 15.74
DA 2 1.43 3.41 5.37
Total 10.43 10.45 21.11

POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION
The post-development condition for the project site consists of one main drainage area which is comprised of five (5) sub-areas. Runoff from drainage sub-areas DA 1, DA 2, DA 3, DA 4, and DA 5 is intercepted by a combination of trench drains, area drains, and curb inlets which stormwater is then conveyed into the proposed underground detention system located southeast of the site. Due to the proposed elevations in the southeast side, a stormwater pump is required to pump DA 4’s runoff into the proposed underground detention system. The treated runoff will then be conveyed into the 108” storm drain pipe located in Guasti Road. See Table 2 below for a summary of the post-development flows without detention, Appendix G for the Proposed Drainage Map, and Appendix H for the rational method calculations. 5355
8 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Table 2: Post-Development Flows (Un-mitigated)
Drainage Area/s Drainage Area (AC) Q10 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DA 1 4.51 17.09 25.48
DA 2 2.29 5.99 8.97
DA 3 2.25 7.10 10.60
DA 4 0.85 3.37 5.02
DA 5 0.53 1.95 2.91
Total 10.43 35.50 52.98

STORMWATER MITIGATION
For proposed onsite flows, stormwater mitigation is needed to ensure the proposed flows do not negatively impact the existing downstream drainage facilities. By comparing the results from Table 1 and Table 2, the proposed development increases onsite flows discharging from the site. To mitigate the increase in flows, an underground stormwater detention system is proposed.

The volume of storage provided in the underground detention system along with the size of the outflow riser structure is intended to restrict peak flows in the proposed condition to levels equal to or less than the existing flows. Based on 100-year 24-hr duration of the 100-year storm event, the highest routed (mitigated) onsite outflows from the underground detention system result in proposed flows that are less than the existing flows for the onsite. Basin routing will be provided in final engineering.

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
The calculated peak flows from the analyses discussed above will be used to size the onsite drainage devices. All drainage devices will be sized in the Final Hydrology Report. 5356
9 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the following was covered in this report:
 The pre-development discharge patterns and points were discussed  The post-development discharge patterns and points were discussed  The pre-development flow rates for the 10-year and 100-year events were determined  The post-development un-mitigated flow rates for the 10-year and 100-year events were determined
 The post-development stormwater mitigation for the 100-year event was analyzed  The post-development final flow rate was proven to be less than the existing design flowrate for the downstream systems
As discussed in the contents of this report, the development of the existing vacant site into the proposed development is not expected to cause a significant impact to downstream systems for storms up to the 100-year condition. The mitigated development discharges less stormwater flows than the existing site conditions.
5357
10 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Appendix A - Location Map
5358
11 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Appendix B - FIRM MAP
5359
5360
12 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Appendix C - Hydrology Manual
Reference Material
5361
5362
13 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Appendix D - NOAA Rain Data
5363
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Ontario, California, USA*
Latitude: 34.0643°, Longitude: -117.6027°
Elevation: 965 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.115
(0.096‑0.140)

0.156
(0.130‑0.189)

0.206
(0.171‑0.250)

0.244
(0.201‑0.299)

0.293
(0.233‑0.372)

0.328
(0.255‑0.425)

0.361
(0.274‑0.481)

0.394
(0.290‑0.540)

0.436
(0.307‑0.623)

0.466
(0.317‑0.691)
10-min 0.166
(0.138‑0.200)

0.224
(0.186‑0.271)

0.295
(0.245‑0.359)

0.350
(0.288‑0.429)

0.419
(0.334‑0.533)

0.469
(0.365‑0.609)

0.518
(0.393‑0.689)

0.565
(0.416‑0.774)

0.624
(0.441‑0.894)

0.668
(0.455‑0.991)
15-min 0.200
(0.167‑0.242)

0.271
(0.225‑0.328)

0.357
(0.296‑0.434)

0.423
(0.348‑0.519)

0.507
(0.403‑0.644)

0.568
(0.442‑0.737)

0.626
(0.475‑0.833)

0.683
(0.503‑0.936)

0.755
(0.533‑1.08)

0.808
(0.550‑1.20)
30-min 0.306
(0.255‑0.370)

0.414
(0.344‑0.501)

0.545
(0.453‑0.663)

0.646
(0.532‑0.793)

0.775
(0.616‑0.984)

0.867
(0.675‑1.13)

0.956
(0.726‑1.27)

1.04 (0.769‑1.43)

1.15 (0.814‑1.65)

1.23 (0.840‑1.83)
60-min 0.449
(0.374‑0.544)

0.607
(0.505‑0.736)

0.800
(0.665‑0.973)

0.949
(0.781‑1.16)

1.14 (0.905‑1.44)

1.27 (0.991‑1.65)

1.40 (1.06‑1.87)

1.53 (1.13‑2.10)

1.69 (1.20‑2.42)

1.81 (1.23‑2.69)
2-hr 0.673
(0.562‑0.816)

0.898
(0.748‑1.09)

1.17 (0.972‑1.42)

1.38 (1.14‑1.69)

1.64 (1.30‑2.08)

1.83 (1.42‑2.37)

2.01 (1.52‑2.67)

2.18 (1.61‑2.99)

2.40 (1.70‑3.44)

2.56 (1.74‑3.80)
3-hr 0.844
(0.704‑1.02)

1.12 (0.931‑1.36)

1.45 (1.20‑1.76)

1.70 (1.40‑2.09)

2.02 (1.61‑2.57)

2.25 (1.75‑2.92)

2.47 (1.87‑3.29)

2.68 (1.97‑3.67)

2.94 (2.08‑4.21)

3.13 (2.13‑4.65)
6-hr 1.20
(0.998‑1.45)

1.58 (1.32‑1.91)

2.04 (1.70‑2.48)

2.39 (1.97‑2.94)

2.84 (2.26‑3.60)

3.16 (2.46‑4.10)

3.46 (2.62‑4.60)

3.75 (2.76‑5.14)

4.11 (2.90‑5.89)

4.38 (2.98‑6.49)
12-hr 1.55
(1.30‑1.88)

2.05 (1.71‑2.49)

2.66 (2.21‑3.24)

3.13 (2.58‑3.84)

3.72 (2.96‑4.72)

4.14 (3.22‑5.37)

4.54 (3.44‑6.04)

4.93 (3.63‑6.76)

5.42 (3.82‑7.76)

5.77 (3.93‑8.56)
24-hr 2.06
(1.82‑2.38)

2.75 (2.44‑3.18)

3.60 (3.18‑4.17)

4.26 (3.73‑4.97)

5.09 (4.31‑6.14)

5.69 (4.72‑7.00)

6.27 (5.08‑7.90)

6.84 (5.39‑8.86)

7.56 (5.72‑10.2)

8.08 (5.91‑11.3)
2-day 2.45
(2.17‑2.83)

3.35 (2.96‑3.86)

4.46 (3.93‑5.16)

5.32 (4.66‑6.21)

6.44 (5.45‑7.76)

7.26 (6.02‑8.93)

8.06 (6.52‑10.1)

8.84 (6.97‑11.4)

9.85 (7.45‑13.3)

10.6 (7.75‑14.8)
3-day 2.62
(2.32‑3.02)

3.63 (3.21‑4.19)

4.90 (4.32‑5.68)

5.90 (5.16‑6.88)

7.20 (6.10‑8.68)

8.16 (6.77‑10.0)

9.10 (7.37‑11.5)

10.0 (7.91‑13.0)

11.3 (8.52‑15.2)

12.2 (8.90‑17.0)
4-day 2.83
(2.50‑3.26)

3.96 (3.50‑4.57)

5.39 (4.76‑6.24)

6.52 (5.71‑7.61)

8.01 (6.78‑9.65)

9.11 (7.56‑11.2)

10.2 (8.26‑12.9)

11.3 (8.90‑14.6)

12.7 (9.62‑17.2)

13.8 (10.1‑19.2)
7-day 3.28
(2.90‑3.78)

4.68 (4.13‑5.40)

6.46 (5.70‑7.48)

7.89 (6.90‑9.20)

9.78 (8.28‑11.8)

11.2 (9.30‑13.8)

12.6 (10.2‑15.9)

14.1 (11.1‑18.2)

16.0 (12.1‑21.6)

17.4 (12.7‑24.3)
10-day 3.52
(3.12‑4.06)

5.08 (4.49‑5.87)

7.09 (6.25‑8.20)

8.70 (7.61‑10.2)

10.9 (9.20‑13.1)

12.5 (10.4‑15.4)

14.2 (11.5‑17.8)

15.8 (12.5‑20.5)

18.1 (13.7‑24.4)

19.8 (14.5‑27.6)
20-day 4.24
(3.75‑4.88)

6.18 (5.47‑7.14)

8.75 (7.72‑10.1)

10.8 (9.49‑12.7)

13.7 (11.6‑16.5)

15.9 (13.2‑19.6)

18.2 (14.8‑23.0)

20.6 (16.2‑26.7)

23.8 (18.0‑32.1)

26.3 (19.3‑36.7)
30-day 4.98
(4.41‑5.74)

7.24 (6.40‑8.35)

10.3 (9.05‑11.9)

12.8 (11.2‑14.9)

16.3 (13.8‑19.6)

19.0 (15.8‑23.4)

21.8 (17.7‑27.5)

24.8 (19.6‑32.1)

28.9 (21.9‑39.0)

32.2 (23.6‑45.0)
45-day 6.07
(5.37‑7.00)

8.68 (7.68‑10.0)

12.2 (10.8‑14.2)

15.2 (13.3‑17.8)

19.5 (16.5‑23.5)

22.9 (19.0‑28.1)

26.4 (21.4‑33.3)

30.2 (23.8‑39.2)

35.6 (26.9‑48.0)

39.9 (29.2‑55.7)
60-day 7.15
(6.33‑8.25)

10.0 (8.86‑11.6)

14.0 (12.3‑16.2)

17.4 (15.2‑20.3)

22.3 (18.8‑26.8)

26.2 (21.7‑32.2)

30.4 (24.6‑38.3)

34.9 (27.5‑45.2)

41.4 (31.3‑55.8)

46.7 (34.1‑65.1)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
5364
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Large scale terrain
+
–
3km
2mi
5365
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
5366
14 Diversified Empire Hotel │ Preliminary Hydrology Report October 2023
Appendix E - Web Soils Report
5367
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/3/2023

Page 1 of 4 ends

Ontario City CouncilApril 1, 2025

Ontario City Council
April 1, 2025