Exhibit M - Additional Public Comment_01-24-2023.pdf — Rialto City Council, February 28, 2023

January 23, 2023

Via E-mail

Mayor Deborah Robertson
Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott
Council Member Rafael Trujillo
Council Member Andy Carrizales
Council Member Joe Baca
[email protected]

Paul Gonzales
Community Development Manager
City of Rialto
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]
Barbara A. McGee
City Clerk
City of Rialto
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]

Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project, City Council of the City of Rialto, Regular Meeting of January 24, 2023, Agenda Item TAB 1; Conditional Development Permit (CDP) No. 2021-0047; Precise Plan of Design (PPD) No. 2021-0061 (APN: 1133-081- 01 & 1133-081-02) (City File No. 23-022)

Dear Mayor Robertson, Mayor Pro Tem Scott, and Honorable Members of the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), whose members live or work in the City of Rialto (“City”), regarding the City Council’s review of Conditional Development (“CDP”) Permit No. 2021-0047; Precise Plan of Design No. 2021-0061; and the proposed adoption of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical In-Fill Exemption (“Exemption”), related to the development of an approximately 62,248 square-foot industrial building proposed for the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and Stonehurst Drive in the City of Rialto, California (the “Project”).

The City cannot rely on a Class 32 exemption because the Project does not meet the required terms of the exemption under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. In order to be eligible for such an exemption, a Project must be “consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.” (14 CCR § 15332(a).) Additionally, a Project is not eligible for exemption unless a lead agency presents substantial evidence showing that “[a]pproval of the project would Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 2 of 14 ends

not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” (14 CCR § 15332(d) [emph. added]).

SAFER presented written comments to the Rialto Planning Commission, prior to its November 9, 2022 meeting, at which the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the exemption. However, SAFER remains concerned that the proposed exemption violates state law and that the City’s environmental review of the Project is legally inadequate.

SAFER’s comments are informed by the independent review of air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”); and wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, PhD. The CVs and expert comments of SWAPE and Dr. Smallwood are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. A copy of SAFER’s November 9, 2022 letter to the Rialto Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit C and is adopted in its entirety by this letter.

LEGAL STANDARD

As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-20 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88]; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also, 14 CCR § 15382). An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83). “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).

To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three- tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. (Id.). Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a)). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070). Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR is required. (Id.).

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 3 of 14 ends

Certain classes of projects are exempt from the provisions of CEQA if the project comes within a statutory or categorical exemption set forth in the CEQA Guidelines or another statute. . (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(b), 21080.01-21080.35, 20184(a); 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354). “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citations].” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125). The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 [“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’ [Citations].”]).

In order to be eligible for a Class 32 exemption, a lead agency must demonstrate that a proposed Project site has “no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,” and that development of the Project will “not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” (14 CCR § 15332; emph. added.) Additionally, the California Supreme Court has ruled, substantial evidence showing that a Project will have a significant adverse environmental impact makes a Project ineligible for exemption because the presence of such impacts constitutes “unusual circumstances” which fall outside the narrow, intended scope of CEQA exemptions (Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1105 (“Berkeley Hillside”).

The court distinguishes this scenario from one in which the evidence presented merely indicates that a Project may have a significant impact on the environment. “[E]vidence that [a] project will have a significant effect does tend to prove that some circumstance of the project is unusual.” (Berkeley Hillside, at 1105.) Therefore, “a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes ‘a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.’ ([CEQA] Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c).)” (Id.)

The courts have recently reiterated this analysis, explaining that “Categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions. (See [CEQA] Guidelines, § 15300.2.) Among other things, a ‘categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.’ (Id., subd. (c).)” (Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Ass’n v. City etc. of San Francisco (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1063.)

The proposed Project involves unusual circumstances because substantial evidence demonstrates that it will result in significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts to air quality and biological resources. Therefore, the proposed exemption is unlawful and violates CEQA. To comply with state law, the City must deny the exemption and direct staff to prepare Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 4 of 14 ends

an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review, whether a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. The City has Failed to Present Any Evidence Showing that the Project Will Not Have Significant Air Quality Impacts.

The CEQA Guidelines provide that a Class 32 exemption is not permitted unless “Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” (14 CCR § 15332(d) [emph. added]). However, the City has failed to prepare any quantified analysis of the Project’s likely air quality impacts.

The City must conduct an appropriate analysis and provide substantial evidence to support its conclusory statements and findings that the Project will not have adverse air quality impacts. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 [agency findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record].) Where an agency makes findings not supported by substantial evidence, an abuse of discretion is established. (Id.)

In addition, “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record.” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378–79 [quotations omitted].) Indeed, “[d]eficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Id.; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 [holding that city’s failure to undertake adequate environmental analysis further supported fair argument that project would have significant impacts].)

SWAPE reviewed the Staff Report prepared for the Project and found that it failed to “quantitatively evaluate the air quality and health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operation whatsoever.” As a result, the City lacks any evidence to support findings that approval of the project would not result in significant air quality impacts, precluding reliance on the Class 32 exemption, and the City has failed to meet its burden to investigate the Project’s environmental impacts.

Based on the foregoing, the City must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review—be it a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or an environmental impact report (“EIR”)—and conduct the necessary environmental review of the Project pursuant to CEQA.

II. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Produce Significant Air Quality and Related Health Impacts.

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 5 of 14 ends

The Staff Report concludes that the Project would not have any significant air quality impacts. However, this view is entirely conclusory and is not supported by evidence. In contrast, SWAPE reviewed the project and modeled its likely emissions, using project-specific values with the air modeling tool, CalEEMod. Notably, SWAPE found that the Project staff report and other supporting documents “fail[] to mention or evaluate the potential health risk impacts posed by Project-generated toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions whatsoever.” (Ex. A., p. 3.) This is a significant oversight.

First, “by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational health risk analysis (“HRA”), the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make ‘a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.’” (Id., citing Sierra Club, et al., v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.) Importantly, SWAPE observes, “This poses a problem, as construction of the proposed Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment throughout the entire construction duration.” (Id., p. 4.) DPM is a known human carcinogen which causes significant health risks, particularly to sensitive receptors.

Next, SWAPE adds, “the ‘Golden Land Warehouse Scoping Agreement,’ prepared by integrated Engineering Group and included as an attachment to the Agenda, indicates that operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 179 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 2, Table 2). However, the Agenda fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Agenda is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.” (Id.)

The proposed exemption also fails to comply with applicable guidance from the California Department of Justice, which recommends that lead agencies prepare a quantitative HRA for all warehouse projects. (Id.) The City has prepared no analysis whatsoever of the Project’s likely health impacts. Therefore, “a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.” (Id., pp. 4-5.)

Notably, current guidance by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the agency responsible for setting statewide standards to measure health risks under CEQA, recommends that a quantified HRA be prepared to evaluate potential cancer risks for any short-term construction project lasting more than two months, and for the lifetime of any long-term project lasting more than six months. OEHHA guidance also recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk affecting the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) near a proposed Project site. (Id.) A project’s creation of health risks for impacted MEIRs must be further evaluated according to various sensitive receptors’ age and pregnancy status. (Id., p. 9.) Again, a future CEQA analysis must Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 6 of 14 ends

include a quantified HRA and adequately evaluate the Project’s future health risks in accordance with applicable guidance.

The exemption is additionally improper because it “fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the [South Coast Air Quality Management District’s] specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.” (Id., p. 5.) Therefore, “in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.” (Id.) The California Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of air district significance thresholds in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].)

a) Independent Analysis Demonstrates Clear Risk of a Significant Health Impact to Sensitive Receptors.

In the absence of any quantitative analysis prepared by the City, SWAPE prepared an estimate of the Project’s future construction- and operation-related emissions utilizing CalEEMod.2020.4.0, as well as the Project-specific information provided in the staff report. (Ex.

A., p. 5.) SWAPE further relied upon a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a modeling tool which is recommended by both OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) for the development of Level 2 Health Risk Screening Assessments (“Level 2 HRSA”). According to SWAPE, “A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.” (Id., p. 5.)

Following this recommended approach for modeling a Project’s future health risks, SWAPE presented substantial evidence showing that Project construction and operations would result in excess cancer risks for pregnant individuals during the third trimester of pregnancy, as well as for infants, children, and adults when those individuals are maximally exposed to Project- related emissions, or located approximately 100 meters from the Project site. (Id., pp. 6-9.) The resulting cancer risks to pregnant individuals, infants, children under age 16, and adults under 30 would therefore be, respectively, 2.38, 31.2, 14.8, and 1.64 per million. (Id., p. 9.) The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 50.1 per million. (Id.)

Therefore, the cancer risk levels affecting maximally exposed sensitive receptors who are 0-16 years old, or who are exposed to the project over a “lifetime” of 30 or more years, are above the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id., p. 9.) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 7 of 14 ends

substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.)

Even so, SWAPE explains, this analysis is based on a “screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative, and which may not fully capture the extent of a Project’s future health impacts. Therefore, SWAPE concludes that the “screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,” and as such, “a revised EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.” (Id., p. 10.)

III. The City Failed to Consider the Project Site’s “Baseline” Air Pollution Conditions and the Project’s Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.

CEQA requires lead agencies to consider a project’s environmental “baseline”— measured at the time of environmental review and prior to project development—to determine the extent of a Project’s likely future environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:

…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.

(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121-23.)

However, the City has failed to prepare any analysis or assessment of the Project site’s baseline air quality conditions. In contrast, SWAPE reviewed the Project and “determined that the development of the proposed Project would result in disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site.” (Ex. A., p. 10). Importantly, according to the SCAQMD, “Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and [face] a greater environmental burden.” (Id.)

The site’s baseline air quality conditions related to the areas’ existing industrial pollution burden are essential to the City’s consideration of the Project’s potential future air quality Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 8 of 14 ends

impacts, particularly as it pertains to the Project’s likely effect on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, CEQA requires consideration of a Project’s cumulative impacts when determining whether its future environmental impacts may be considered significant. Here, the courts have explained:

“The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (“CBE v. CRA”), (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117.

To this end, the California Department of Justice urges local agencies performing CEQA review of warehouse projects to fully analyze “all reasonably foreseeable project impacts, including cumulative impacts.” (California Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 6, available at
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best- practices.pdf.) Furthermore, the guidance adds, “When analyzing cumulative impacts,” agencies should thoroughly consider “the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance thresholds.” (Id., emph. added.)

Therefore, a legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).

Importantly, in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718, the court concluded that an EIR violated CEQA because it failed to adequately consider a Project’s cumulative air quality impacts. Here, the court wrote: “The EIR’s analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the air basin in order to trivialize the project’s impact. In simple terms, the EIR reasons the air is already bad, so even though emissions from the project will make it worse, the impact is insignificant.” The court forcefully rejected this analysis, observing that: “The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin.” (Id., emph. added.) IV. Substantial Evidence Shows that the Project’s Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Will Disproportionately Burden the Health of Impacted Area Residents.

Based on the foregoing, it is essential that the City prepare a detailed cumulative impacts analysis prior to considering approval of the proposed Project. However, the City prepared no Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 9 of 14 ends

such analysis in proposing the exemption. Therefore, SWAPE conducted a review of the Project site and the existing pollution burden in the surrounding community. This review provides substantial evidence that the Project, if approved, will have a significant impact on air quality and the health of impacted residents. Because the project will have a significant air quality impact, it is ineligible for CEQA exemption.

First, SCAQMD research has found that, among 2.4 million Southern California residents who live within one half-mile radius of at least one warehouse, impacted communities are disproportionately Black and Latino and experience elevated rates of asthma, heart disease, and other serious health ailments. (Id.) A similar study found that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.” (Id., pp. 10-11.) Finally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and researchers at the University of Redlands found that “more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death.” (Id., p. 11.)

Despite these significant health risks, the Inland Empire region continues to build an estimated 10 to 25 million square feet of new industrial space each year. (Id.) For example, upon reviewing site-specific data for the proposed Project from CalEnviroScreen 4.0—the California Environmental Protection Agency’s statewide screening tool which maps census tracts according to environmental burden and socioeconomic vulnerability—SWAPE found that the Project’s census tract registers in the 80th percentile of most polluted census tracts in California. (Id.) Similarly, data from the SCAQMD’s MATES V data visualization tool shows that Project site’s surrounding area residents face an existing cancer risk among the 71st percentile of the South Coast Air Basin residents across Southern California (Id., p. 12)

These disproportionate health burdens are due in large part to heavy industrial and warehousing activities in the surrounding area. For instance, in April 2022, the American Lung Association ranked San Bernadino County as having the worst for ozone pollution in the nation. (Id., p. 13) Similarly, the Los Angeles Times reported that, in 2020, San Bernardino County violated federal health standards for ozone pollution, or “smog,” on 130 days. Downtown Los Angeles, by contrast, had only 22 ozone violation days in 2020. (Id.) According to studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and researchers at Stanford University, the health impacts of smog pollution are especially severe for children (Id., pp. 13-14.)

Importantly, SWAPE found that the Wilmer Amina Carter High School is located 0.44 miles from the Project site. According to SWAPE, “This poses a significant threat because, as outlined above, children are a vulnerable population that are more susceptible to the damaging side effects of air pollution. As such, the Project would have detrimental short-term and long- term health impacts on local children if approved.” (Id., pp. 14-15.)

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 10 of 14 ends

(Google Earth image via SWAPE, Ex. A., p. 15.)

In conclusion, SWAPE wrote that “[a]n EIR should be prepared to evaluate the disproportionate impacts of the proposed warehouse on the community adjacent to the Project, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. Finally, in order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the EIR should prepare a cumulative health risk assessment (“HRA”) to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract.” (Ex. A., p. 15.)

V. The City Failed to Disclose or Evaluate the Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials on the Project Site.

The City failed to disclose or evaluate the potential presence of hazardous materials on the Project site in proposing the exemption. However, SWAPE’s review of Google Maps Street View images from April 2022 (see below) demonstrate that “debris consisting of foil piles and trash had been disposed of at the Project site.” (Ex. A., p. 1.)

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 11 of 14 ends

(Google Maps image via SWAPE, Ex. A., p. 1.)

Accordingly, SWAPE writes, “A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is necessary for inclusion in a full CEQA analysis to evaluate the debris and trash prior to Project approval. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in the preparation of project approval documents to identify and disclose hazardous waste issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. The debris and trash in the photo above may contain hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.” (Ex. A., p. 2.)

This is an additional significant environmental and health risk which the City has failed to address. According to SWAPE, “A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in a full CEQA analysis to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses include RECs [recognized environmental conditions], a Phase II [ESA] should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.” (Id., pp. 2-3).

VI. Substantial Evidence Shows that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts to Biological Resources.

In order to be eligible for a Class 32 exemption, a lead agency must demonstrate that a proposed Project site has “no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” (14 CCR § 15332; emph. added.) Here, the City’s analysis regarding the site’s value as habitat for special-status species is not supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Shawn Smallwood, an independent ecologist, reviewed the proposed exemption and the 2019 biological resources study prepared by Jericho Systems, Inc., and found the study to be deeply inadequate.

Dr. Smallwood’s review relied upon a detailed report and photographs taken by his associate, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist, following a site visit she made to the proposed Project site on November 17, 2022. Based on this assessment, Dr. Smallwood identified

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 12 of 14 ends

numerous Project impacts to biological resources which require mitigation under CEQA. Dr.

Smallwood’s comments are attached to this letter as Exhibit C.

During her site visit, Ms. Smallwood “detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife” at or near the Project site, including three special-status species. (Ex. C., p. 2.) The special-status species which Ms. Smallwood detected include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and California gull (Larus californicus). (Id, p. 3.) However, noting that windy conditions during the site visit likely limited visible wildlife activity, Dr. Smallwood wrote that Ms. Smallwood nevertheless “saw enough of the wildlife community during her brief survey to confirm that the site amply provides habitat values to wildlife, and that the airspace over the project site is used by many birds for foraging, home range patrol and migratory movement.” (Id., p. 2.)

Dr. Smallwood also reviewed the 2019 Jericho Systems study and found it to be deeply flawed and unsupported by substantial evidence. Notably, Dr. Smallwood wrote, the “essential steps” of characterizing the Project’s environmental baseline, as required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, “remain incomplete and misleading” in the Jericho Systems study (Id., p. 8.) For instance, the study “provides no details about how [its] determinations were made during the survey to link ‘known habitat preferences’ to what was seen of the project site during the survey.” (Id.) Furthermore, “The habitat associations described by Jericho systems (2019) lack any citation to source, nor is there evidence provided that any of the habitat associations were derived from actual measurements of any of the species’ use of the environment.” (Id.)

In one instance, the study summarily concluded, without any supporting evidence, that “the Site is not suitable for use by raptors.” (Id., p. 9.) In contrast, Ms. Smallwood “clearly refuted Jericho Systems’ (2019) conclusion, as a Cooper’s hawk,” a special-status bird species, “hunted the site (Photo 7). Noriko also saw turkey vultures at the site.” (Id., p. 10.) In addition, wildlife database eBird shows that “occurrence records exist of multiple species of raptors, including of northern harrier, red-shouldered hawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, burrowing owl, and American kestrel very close to the site (within 1.5 miles), and of osprey, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, sharp-shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, barn owl, great horned owl, merlin, prairie falcon and peregrine falcon nearby the site (within 1.5 and 4 miles).” (Id.) Accordingly, Dr. Smallwood writes, “Jericho systems’ (2019) conclusion is not credible.” (Id.)

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 13 of 14 ends

Cooper’s hawk, a special-status bird species, photographed at the project site on November 17, 2022. Photo credit: Noriko Smallwood (Ex. C., p. 10.)

Finally, Dr. Smallwood found that “Jericho [Systems]’s analysis of occurrence likelihoods does not comport with [wildlife] database records.” (Id., p. 11.) Notably, he observed, “Jericho Systems (2019) often pigeonholes species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which are then implied to be absent from the site. In these cases, Jericho Systems (2019) summarily concludes the habitat on site is unsuitable.” (Id.) These conclusory findings are consistently refuted, however, by the findings of Ms. Smallwood’s site survey, which demonstrated the occurrence of multiple special-status species living on or near the project site.

In conclusion, Dr. Smallwood observed that “The proposed CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption is founded on a purely speculative observation – lacking any evidentiary support – that the site ‘has no significant impact and no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species’ (Page 63 of Planning Commission Agenda Packet, 9 November 2022). Neither does the City of Rialto (2010) General Plan support the City’s speculative conclusion, as no surveys nor database review were completed for it. Noriko’s survey refutes the City’s speculative basis for the Exemption.” (Id., pp. 7-8; emph. added.)

Comments to the Rialto City Council
Re: Golden Land Warehouse Project
January 23, 2023

Page 14 of 14 ends

CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR – including the independent development of biological resource surveys – to fully assess and more extensively mitigate these impacts. In particular, Dr. Smallwood writes, the EIR should characterize the environmental setting “along the reaches of the road to be used by the project-generated traffic” which is estimated to result in “179 daily vehicle miles travel (VMT), or an annual VMT of 65,335.” (Id., p. 12.) Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood adds, “
This VMT would jeopardize many wild animals with collision mortality well beyond the project building’s footprint.” (Id.)

Dr. Smallwood’s findings constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on existing biological resources. Therefore, the use of an exemption is improper, and if approved, would violate CEQA.

VII. CONCLUSION

The City cannot rely on a Class 32 exemption because the Project does not meet the required terms of the exemption. SAFER has presented substantial evidence, based on independent experts’ review, that the Project will have significant air quality and biological impacts, including cumulative impacts that will negatively impact existing sensitive receptors.

An initial review of the Project also reveals possible risks related to the presence of potentially hazardous materials on the Project site.

Accordingly, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review required under CEQA, and thereafter, conduct the necessary environmental in accordance with applicable CEQA requirements. SAFER respectfully requests that you deny approval of the Project and direct staff to conduct further environmental review as required by state law. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Adam Frankel
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
November 18, 2022
Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Golden Land Industrial Project Dear Mr. Frankel,
We have reviewed the November 2022 Agenda Report (“Agenda”) for the Golden Land Industrial Project (“Project”) located in the City of Rialto (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 62,248-square-feet (“SF) of warehouse space, 5,964-SF of office space, and 69 parking spaces on the 2.84-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Agenda fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts. As a result of our findings, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. 1500 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”) and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
Review of an image the Project site from Google Maps Street View, dated April 2022, demonstrates that debris consisting of foil piles and trash had been disposed of at the Project site (see image below).

2 View south of Project site from Stonehurst Dr., Apr. 2022 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is necessary for inclusion in a full CEQA analysis to evaluate the debris and trash prior to Project approval. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in the preparation of project approval documents to identify and disclose hazardous waste issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. The debris and trash in the photo above may contain hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.

Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substance and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.

A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in a full CEQA analysis to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses include RECs, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including

1 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process .” ASTM International, December 2021, available at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm .

3 California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Air Quality
Incorrect Reliance on Class 32 Categorical Exemption
The Agenda Report claims that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Guidelines § 15332. Specifically, the Agenda Report concludes:

“The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332, In-Fill Projects (Class 32). Class 32 allows for project such as this which are consistent with the applicable general plan designation, zoning designation and regulations and involves development in an urban area with adequate access to utilities on less than 5-acres of land that has no significant impact and no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, thereby qualifying the project for a Class 32 exemption” (p. 4).

As demonstrated above, a project can only be characterized as an in-fill development and qualify for a Section 15332 CEQA Exemption if approval of the project would not result in any “significant impact.” However, the Agenda fails to quantitatively evaluate the air quality and health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operation whatsoever. As such, the Staff Report fails to adequately disclose the Project’s potential air quality and health risk impacts on the environment per CEQA Guidelines § 15332. Therefore, the Project is ineligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and a full CEQA analysis should be prepared for the following reasons:
(1) The Agenda fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts; (2) SWAPE’s screening-level health risk assessment indicates a potentially significant health risk impact; and
(3) Development of the proposed Project would result in disproportionate health risk impacts. 1) Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As previously stated, the Agenda fails to evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. Specifically, the Agenda fails to mention or evaluate the potential health risk impacts posed by Project-generated toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions whatsoever. This is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational health risk analysis (“HRA”), the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 3 This poses a problem, as construction of

2 “HERO HHRA Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs).” California Department Of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) & Human And Ecological Risk Office (HERO), June 2020, available at:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-Revised-A.pdf. 3 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf . 4 the proposed Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment throughout the entire construction duration. Furthermore, the “Golden Land Warehouse Scoping Agreement,” prepared by integrated Engineering Group and included as an attachment to the Agenda, indicates that operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 179 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 2, Table 2). However, the Agenda fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Agenda is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.4 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.5 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”6 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period.

Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).7 While the Agenda fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2- month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an

4 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at :
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf , p. 8-18. 6 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf , p. 8-18. 7 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf , p. 2-4. 5 analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Third, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the Agenda fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.8 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted. 2) Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In an effort to estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we utilized CalEEMod.2020.4.0, as well as the Project-specific information provided by the Agenda.9 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type, and typical equipment associated with project type.

In our model, we included 62,248 square-feet (“SF”) of “Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail,” 5,964-SF of “General Office Building,” and 69 parking spaces. Additionally, we adjusted the operational vehicle trip rates to account for 179 daily vehicle trips. Finally, we assumed that the Project would be located within Climate Zone 1010 and the Project’s utilities would be provided by the Southern California Edison.11 All other values were left as default.12
Next, in order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.13 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).14, 15 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

8 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 9 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
10 “Appendix F Climate Zones Lookup.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/07_appendix-f2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.

F-11.
11 “Southern California Edison’s Service Area.” Southern California Edison, April 2019, available at :
https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/?f_id=5cc32d492cfac24d21aecf4c&content_verifie d=True, pp. 2.
12 See Attachment A for CalEEMod output files.
13 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA , April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf . 15 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6- 09.pdf. 6 We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.
16 The SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that
construction activities will generate approximately 130 pounds of DPM over the 386-day construction period.17 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 129.6 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
3 86 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3 ,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00176 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 386-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.94 years. SWAPE’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 29 net pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 28.6 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
3 65 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3 ,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔

Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000411 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 2.84-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 151- by 76-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The population of Rialto was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.18 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.19 Review of Google Earth demonstrates that the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 75 meters from the Project site (see excerpt below).

16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf , p. 8-18. 17 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.
18 “Rialto.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0660466. 19 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA , October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 7 Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately

1.752 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1752 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR.

For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.4088 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.04088 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.20 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high- point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at

20 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental- guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.

8 home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)21
Age
Sensitivity
Factor22
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home23
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)24
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 –
30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)

21 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf . 22 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf , p. 8-5, Table 8.3. 23 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 24 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidan cemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 9 To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸
𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸 𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 386-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.81 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.19 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1752 2.38E-06
Construction 0.81 0.1752 2.32E-05
Operation 1.19 0.0409 8.01E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.12E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0409 1.48E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0409 1.64E-06
Lifetime 30 5.01E-05
As demonstrated, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 2.38, 31.2, 14.8, and 1.64 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 50.1 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Agenda. 10 Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. 3) Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the Agenda, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project would result in disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the SCAQMD:
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”
25 In particular, the SCAQMD found that more than 2.4 million people live within a half mile radius of at least one warehouse, and that those areas not only experience increased rates of asthma and heart attacks, but are also disproportionately Black and Latino communities below the poverty line.26 Another study similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing

25 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule .” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 26 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back .” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target- warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 11 facilities.”27 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollution- burdened areas ‘diesel death zones.”28
It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health. The Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25 million SF of new industrial space each year.29
San Bernardino County, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden compared to the rest of California. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 80th percentile of most polluted census tracts in the State (see excerpt below).30

27 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20 and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21.
28 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf , p. 4. 29 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/- /media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response- 2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2.
30 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), October 2021, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen -40. 12 Furthermore, the Data Visualization Tool for Mates V, a monitoring and evaluation study conducted by SCAQMD, demonstrates that the City already exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. Specifically, the location of the Project site is in the 71st percentile of highest cancer risks in the South Coast Air Basin (see excerpt below).31

31 “Residential Air Toxics Cancer Risk Calculated from Model Data in Grid Cells .” MATES V, 2018, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/Main -Page/?views=Click- tabs-for-other-data%2CGridded-Cancer-Risk; see also: “M ATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study.” SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v.

13 Therefore, development of the proposed warehouse would disproportionately contribute to and exacerbate the health conditions of the residents in Rialto.

In April 2022, the American Lung Association ranked San Bernadino County as the worst for ozone pollution in the nation.32 The Los Angeles Times also reported that San Bernardino County had 130 bad air days for ozone pollution in 2020, violating federal health standards on nearly every summer day.33 Downtown Los Angeles, by comparison, had 22 ozone violation days in 2020. This year, the County continues to face the worst ozone pollution, as it has seen the highest recorded Air Quality Index (“AQI”) values for ground-level ozone in California.34 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.” 35 32 “State of the Air 2022.” American Lung Association, April 2022, available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings/most-polluted-places. 33 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back .” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target- warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 34 “High Ozone Days.” American Lung Association, 2022, available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/california. 35 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone- pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution.

14 Furthermore, regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:
• Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution. • Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk.
• Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.”
36 A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.37 Thus, given children’s higher propensity to succumb to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and as warehouses release more smog-forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.

According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, there are 640 schools in the South Coast Air Basin that are located within half a mile of a large warehouse, most of them in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. 38 Furthermore,
review of Google Earth reveals that Wilmer Amina Carter High School is located 0.44 miles from the Project site (see excerpt below):

36 “Children and Air Pollution.” California Air Resources Board (CARB), available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-air-pollution. 37 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others .” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrens- health/.
38 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice , April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf , p. 4. 15 As demonstrated above, Wilmer Amina Carter High School is located within 1 mile of the Project site.

This poses a significant threat because, as outlined above, children are a vulnerable population that are more susceptible to the damaging side effects of air pollution. As such, the Project would have detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts on local children if approved.

An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the disproportionate impacts of the proposed warehouse on the community adjacent to the Project, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. Finally, in order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the EIR should prepare a cumulative health risk assessment (“HRA”) to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or

16 otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

S
incerely,
M
att Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

P
aul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

A
ttachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV

Golden Land Industrial Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Land Use - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with Agenda Report, 179 trips.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 62.25 1000sqft 1.43 62,248.00 0 General Office Building 5.96 1000sqft 0.14 5,964.00 0
Parking Lot 69.00 Space 0.62 27,600.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 2.88
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 1 of 34 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment A

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 2 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2022

0.0283

0.2721

0.2205

4.2000e-
004

0.0266

0.0129

0.0395

0.0113

0.0121

0.0234

0.0000

36.6774

9.0500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

36.9484
2023

0.5286

1.5962

1.7724

3.5300e-
003

0.0595

0.0695

0.1290

0.0161

0.0665

0.0826

0.0000
300.9765
300.9765

0.0467

5.4800e-
003
303.7783
Maximum

0.5286

1.5962

1.7724

3.5300e-
003

0.0595

0.0695

0.1290

0.0161

0.0665

0.0826

0.0000
300.9765
300.9765

0.0467

5.4800e-
003
303.7783
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2022

0.0283

0.2721

0.2205

4.2000e-
004

0.0266

0.0129

0.0395

0.0113

0.0121

0.0234

0.0000

36.6774

9.0500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

36.9483
2023

0.5286

1.5962

1.7724

3.5300e-
003

0.0595

0.0695

0.1290

0.0161

0.0665

0.0826

0.0000
300.9762
300.9762

0.0467

5.4800e-
003
303.7780
Maximum

0.5286

1.5962

1.7724

3.5300e-
003

0.0595

0.0695

0.1290

0.0161

0.0665

0.0826

0.0000
300.9762
300.9762

0.0467

5.4800e-
003
303.7780
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 3 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 11-16-2022
2-15-2023

0.5661

0.5661
2 2-16-2023
5-15-2023

0.5144

0.5144
3 5-16-2023
8-15-2023

0.5312

0.5312
4 8-16-2023
9-30-2023

0.2656

0.2656
Highest

0.5661

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Energy

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.5000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
624.1711
624.1711

0.0414

7.7900e-
003
627.5266
Mobile

0.1049

0.1805

1.1810

2.7500e-
003

0.2893

2.1800e-
003

0.2914

0.0773

2.0400e-
003

0.0793

0.0000
254.2769
254.2769

0.0137

0.0124
258.3196
Waste

0.0000

13.0016

0.0000

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Water

0.0000

4.9030

36.9672

41.8703

0.5067

0.0123

58.1942
Total

0.4028

0.3394

1.3162

3.7000e-
003

0.2893

0.0143

0.3035

0.0773

0.0141

0.0914

17.9046
915.4186
933.3232

1.3302

0.0325
976.2549
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 4 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Energy

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.5000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
624.1711
624.1711

0.0414

7.7900e-
003
627.5266
Mobile

0.1049

0.1805

1.1810

2.7500e-
003

0.2893

2.1800e-
003

0.2914

0.0773

2.0400e-
003

0.0793

0.0000
254.2769
254.2769

0.0137

0.0124
258.3196
Waste

0.0000

13.0016

0.0000

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Water

0.0000

4.9030

36.9672

41.8703

0.5067

0.0123

58.1942
Total

0.4028

0.3394

1.3162

3.7000e-
003

0.2893

0.0143

0.3035

0.0773

0.0141

0.0914

17.9046
915.4186
933.3232

1.3302

0.0325
976.2549
Mitigated Operational

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 5 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4 Building Construction
Building Construction
12/27/2022
10/30/2023
5 220
5 Paving
Paving
10/31/2023
11/13/2023
5 10
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
11/14/2023
11/27/2023
5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 8.00
9 0.56
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Building Construction
Cranes
1 8.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
2 7.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Paving
Pavers
1 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
1 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Scrapers
1 8.00
367

0.48 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 6.00
97 0.37
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 7.00
97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 102,318; Non-Residential Outdoor: 34,106; Striped Parking Area: 1,656 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0.62
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 6 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0169

0.1662

0.1396

2.4000e-
004

8.3800e-
003

7.8300e-
003

0.0000

21.0777

5.3700e-
003

0.0000

21.2120
Total

0.0169

0.1662

0.1396

2.4000e-
004

8.3800e-
003

7.8300e-
003

0.0000

21.0777

5.3700e-
003

0.0000

21.2120
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
3 8.00
46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
5 13.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
3 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4 10.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
8 40.00

16.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 7 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.9000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

4.6100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1360

3.0000e-
005

1.1466
Total

4.9000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

4.6100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1360

3.0000e-
005

1.1466
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0169

0.1662

0.1396

2.4000e-
004

8.3800e-
003

7.8300e-
003

0.0000

21.0777

5.3700e-
003

0.0000

21.2119
Total

0.0169

0.1662

0.1396

2.4000e-
004

8.3800e-
003

7.8300e-
003

0.0000

21.0777

5.3700e-
003

0.0000

21.2119
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 8 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.9000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

4.6100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1360

3.0000e-
005

1.1466
Total

4.9000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

4.6100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1360

3.0000e-
005

1.1466
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

2.3900e-
003

0.0000

2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.6000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.0700e-
003

0.0235

0.0151

4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2321

1.0500e-
003

0.0000

3.2582
Total

2.0700e-
003

0.0235

0.0151

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000

3.2321

1.0500e-
003

0.0000

3.2582
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 9 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1049

0.0000

0.1058
Total

5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1049

0.0000

0.1058
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

2.3900e-
003

0.0000

2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.6000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.0700e-
003

0.0235

0.0151

4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2321

1.0500e-
003

0.0000

3.2582
Total

2.0700e-
003

0.0235

0.0151

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000

3.2321

1.0500e-
003

0.0000

3.2582
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 10 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1049

0.0000

0.1058
Total

5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1049

0.0000

0.1058
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0213

0.0000

0.0213

0.0103

0.0000

0.0103

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.6200e-
003

0.0510

0.0277

6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000

5.4308

1.7600e-
003

0.0000

5.4747
Total

4.6200e-
003

0.0510

0.0277

6.0000e-
005

0.0213

2.2300e-
003

0.0235

0.0103

2.0500e-
003

0.0123

0.0000

5.4308

1.7600e-
003

0.0000

5.4747
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 11 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.1000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0600e-
003

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2622

1.0000e-
005

0.2646
Total

1.1000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0600e-
003

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2622

1.0000e-
005

0.2646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0213

0.0000

0.0213

0.0103

0.0000

0.0103

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.6200e-
003

0.0510

0.0277

6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000

5.4308

1.7600e-
003

0.0000

5.4747
Total

4.6200e-
003

0.0510

0.0277

6.0000e-
005

0.0213

2.2300e-
003

0.0235

0.0103

2.0500e-
003

0.0123

0.0000

5.4308

1.7600e-
003

0.0000

5.4747
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 12 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.1000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0600e-
003

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2622

1.0000e-
005

0.2646
Total

1.1000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0600e-
003

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2622

1.0000e-
005

0.2646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

3.7100e-
003

0.0292

0.0287

5.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
003

1.3500e-
003

0.0000

4.1536

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.1736
Total

3.7100e-
003

0.0292

0.0287

5.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
003

1.3500e-
003

0.0000

4.1536

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.1736
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 13 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

5.0000e-
005

1.4700e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.5811

2.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

0.6071
Worker

3.0000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

2.8300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.8000e-
004

0.0000

8.8000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.6991

2.0000e-
005

0.7056
Total

3.5000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

3.3500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.2802

4.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

1.3127
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

3.7100e-
003

0.0292

0.0287

5.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
003

1.3500e-
003

0.0000

4.1536

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.1736
Total

3.7100e-
003

0.0292

0.0287

5.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
003

1.3500e-
003

0.0000

4.1536

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.1736
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 14 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

5.0000e-
005

1.4700e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.5811

2.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

0.6071
Worker

3.0000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

2.8300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.8000e-
004

0.0000

8.8000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.6991

2.0000e-
005

0.7056
Total

3.5000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

3.3500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.2802

4.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

1.3127
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1851

1.4714

1.5352

2.7000e-
003

0.0663

0.0635

0.0000
224.3182
224.3182

0.0424

0.0000
225.3788
Total

0.1851

1.4714

1.5352

2.7000e-
003

0.0663

0.0635

0.0000
224.3182
224.3182

0.0424

0.0000
225.3788
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 15 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.9500e-
003

0.0638

0.0258

3.1000e-
004

0.0109

4.6000e-
004

0.0114

3.1500e-
003

4.4000e-
004

3.5800e-
003

0.0000

30.1161

7.8000e-
004

4.4500e-
003

31.4620
Worker

0.0150

0.0112

0.1402

4.0000e-
004

0.0474

2.4000e-
004

0.0476

0.0126

2.2000e-
004

0.0128

0.0000

36.5365

9.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
003

36.8599
Total

0.0170

0.0750

0.1660

7.1000e-
004

0.0583

7.0000e-
004

0.0590

0.0157

6.6000e-
004

0.0164

0.0000

66.6526

1.7500e-
003

5.4500e-
003

68.3219
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1851

1.4714

1.5352

2.7000e-
003

0.0663

0.0635

0.0000
224.3180
224.3180

0.0424

0.0000
225.3785
Total

0.1851

1.4714

1.5352

2.7000e-
003

0.0663

0.0635

0.0000
224.3180
224.3180

0.0424

0.0000
225.3785
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 16 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.9500e-
003

0.0638

0.0258

3.1000e-
004

0.0109

4.6000e-
004

0.0114

3.1500e-
003

4.4000e-
004

3.5800e-
003

0.0000

30.1161

7.8000e-
004

4.4500e-
003

31.4620
Worker

0.0150

0.0112

0.1402

4.0000e-
004

0.0474

2.4000e-
004

0.0476

0.0126

2.2000e-
004

0.0128

0.0000

36.5365

9.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
003

36.8599
Total

0.0170

0.0750

0.1660

7.1000e-
004

0.0583

7.0000e-
004

0.0590

0.0157

6.6000e-
004

0.0164

0.0000

66.6526

1.7500e-
003

5.4500e-
003

68.3219
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

4.4000e-
003

0.0431

0.0584

9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000

7.7564

2.4600e-
003

0.0000

7.8179
Paving

8.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Total

5.2100e-
003

0.0431

0.0584

9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000

7.7564

2.4600e-
003

0.0000

7.8179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 17 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.6000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.6343

2.0000e-
005

0.6399
Total

2.6000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.6343

2.0000e-
005

0.6399
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

4.4000e-
003

0.0431

0.0584

9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000

7.7564

2.4600e-
003

0.0000

7.8178
Paving

8.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Total

5.2100e-
003

0.0431

0.0584

9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000

7.7564

2.4600e-
003

0.0000

7.8178
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 18 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.6000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.6343

2.0000e-
005

0.6399
Total

2.6000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.4300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000

8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.6343

2.0000e-
005

0.6399
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.3200

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

9.6000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2766

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.2785
Total

0.3210

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2766

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.2785
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 19 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
003

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.3383

1.0000e-
005

0.3413
Total

1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
003

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.3383

1.0000e-
005

0.3413
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.3200

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

9.6000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2766

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.2785
Total

0.3210

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2766

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.2785
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 20 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
003

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.3383

1.0000e-
005

0.3413
Total

1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
003

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.4000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.3383

1.0000e-
005

0.3413
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 21 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

0.1049

0.1805

1.1810

2.7500e-
003

0.2893

2.1800e-
003

0.2914

0.0773

2.0400e-
003

0.0793

0.0000
254.2769
254.2769

0.0137

0.0124
258.3196
Unmitigated

0.1049

0.1805

1.1810

2.7500e-
003

0.2893

2.1800e-
003

0.2914

0.0773

2.0400e-
003

0.0793

0.0000
254.2769
254.2769

0.0137

0.0124
258.3196

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

0.00 0.00

0.00 Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

0.00 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
179.00
179.00
179.00
767,145
767,145
Total
179.00
179.00
179.00
767,145
767,145
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40

6.90 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
Parking Lot

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 22 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000
451.2432
451.2432

0.0381

4.6200e-
003
453.5711
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000
451.2432
451.2432

0.0381

4.6200e-
003
453.5711
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.5000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
172.9279
172.9279

3.3100e-
003

3.1700e-
003
173.9555
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.5000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
172.9279
172.9279

3.3100e-
003

3.1700e-
003
173.9555

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 23 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
20456.5

1.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
003

8.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0916

2.0000e-
005

1.0981
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

3.22009e
+006

0.0174

0.1579

0.1326

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
171.8362
171.8362

3.2900e-
003

3.1500e-
003
172.8574
Total

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.6000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
172.9279
172.9279

3.3100e-
003

3.1700e-
003
173.9555
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 24 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
003

8.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0916

2.0000e-
005

1.0981
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

3.22009e
+006

0.0174

0.1579

0.1326

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
171.8362
171.8362

3.2900e-
003

3.1500e-
003
172.8574
Total

0.0175

0.1589

0.1334

9.6000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000
172.9279
172.9279

3.3100e-
003

3.1700e-
003
173.9555
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 25 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
54809.2

9.7202

8.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

9.7703
Parking Lot
9660

1.7132

1.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7220
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.47996e
+006
439.8099

0.0371

4.5000e-
003
442.0788
Total
451.2432

0.0381

4.6200e-
003
453.5711
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 26 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
54809.2

9.7202

8.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

9.7703
Parking Lot
9660

1.7132

1.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7220
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.47996e
+006
439.8099

0.0371

4.5000e-
003
442.0788
Total
451.2432

0.0381

4.6200e-
003
453.5711
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 27 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Unmitigated

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003

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

0.0320

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.2483

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.6000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Total

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 28 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0320

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.2483

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.6000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Total

0.2804

2.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.6300e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 29 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated

41.8703

0.5067

0.0123

58.1942
Unmitigated

41.8703

0.5067

0.0123

58.1942

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building

1.05929 /

0.649244

4.0614

0.0348

8.5000e-
004

5.1864
Parking Lot
0 / 0

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

14.3953 /
0 37.8089

0.4719

0.0114

53.0077
Total

41.8703

0.5067

0.0123

58.1942
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 30 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

1.05929 /

0.649244

4.0614 0.0348 8.5000e-
004

5.1864
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

14.3953 /
0 37.8089 0.4719 0.0114 53.0077
Total 41.8703 0.5067 0.0123 58.1942
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 31 of 34 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Unmitigated

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.54 1.1246

0.0665

0.0000

2.7861
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

58.51 11.8770

0.7019

0.0000

29.4248
Total

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 32 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.54 1.1246

0.0665

0.0000

2.7861
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

58.51 11.8770

0.7019

0.0000

29.4248
Total

13.0016

0.7684

0.0000

32.2108
Mitigated

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

Page 33 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 34 of 34 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Golden Land Industrial Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Land Use - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with Agenda Report,
179
trips.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

62.25 1000sqft

1.43 62,248.00
0 General Office Building

5.96 1000sqft

0.14 5,964.00
0 Parking Lot

69.00 Space

0.62 27,600.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2024
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.12 2.88
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 1 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 2 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2022

2.0527

17.0104

16.2559

0.0321

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
3,026.518
6 3,026.518
6 0.7704

0.0578
3,055.279
4 2023

64.2230

14.2795

15.9543

0.0319

0.5496

0.6201

1.1697

0.1481

0.5941

0.7422

0.0000
3,000.196
9 3,000.196
9 0.5456

0.0550
3,027.842
9 Maximum

64.2230

17.0104

16.2559

0.0321

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
3,026.518
6 3,026.518
6 0.7704

0.0578
3,055.279
4 Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2022

2.0527

17.0104

16.2559

0.0321

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
3,026.518
6 3,026.518
6 0.7704

0.0578
3,055.279
4 2023

64.2230

14.2795

15.9543

0.0319

0.5496

0.6201

1.1697

0.1481

0.5941

0.7422

0.0000
3,000.196
9 3,000.196
9 0.5456

0.0550
3,027.842
9 Maximum

64.2230

17.0104

16.2559

0.0321

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
3,026.518
6 3,026.518
6 0.7704

0.0578
3,055.279
4 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 3 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 4 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Energy

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Mobile

0.6557

0.9141

7.0338

0.0161

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,637.626
5 1,637.626
5 0.0807

0.0724
1,661.224
9 Total

2.2885

1.7846

7.7789

0.0213

1.6199

0.0782

1.6981

0.4320

0.0774

0.5095
2,682.151
4 2,682.151
4 0.1008

0.0916
2,711.958
7 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Energy

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Mobile

0.6557

0.9141

7.0338

0.0161

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,637.626
5 1,637.626
5 0.0807

0.0724
1,661.224
9 Total

2.2885

1.7846

7.7789

0.0213

1.6199

0.0782

1.6981

0.4320

0.0774

0.5095
2,682.151
4 2,682.151
4 0.1008

0.0916
2,711.958
7 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 5 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
11/16/2022
12/13/2022
5 20
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
12/14/2022
12/16/2022
5 3
3 Grading
Grading
12/17/2022
12/26/2022
5 6
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
12/27/2022
10/30/2023
5 220
5 Paving
Paving
10/31/2023
11/13/2023
5 10
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
11/14/2023
11/27/2023
5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 8.00
9 0.56
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Building Construction
Cranes
1 8.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
2 7.00
89 0.20
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 102,318; Non-Residential Outdoor: 34,106; Striped Parking Area: 1,656 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0.62
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 6 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Paving
Pavers
1 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
1 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Scrapers
1 8.00
367

0.48 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 6.00
97 0.37
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 7.00
97 0.37
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
3 8.00
46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
5 13.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
3 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4 10.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
8 40.00

16.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 7 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0550 0.0349 0.5348 1.3400e-
003

0.1453 7.6000e-
004

0.1461 0.0385 7.0000e-
004

0.0392 135.5663 135.5663 3.5500e-
003

3.4000e-
003
136.6669
Total 0.0550 0.0349 0.5348 1.3400e-
003

0.1453 7.6000e-
004

0.1461 0.0385 7.0000e-
004

0.0392 135.5663 135.5663 3.5500e-
003

3.4000e-
003
136.6669
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 8 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.0000
2,323.416
8 2,323.416
8 0.5921
2,338.219
1 Total

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.0000
2,323.416
8 2,323.416
8 0.5921
2,338.219
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0550

0.0349

0.5348

1.3400e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
135.5663
135.5663

3.5500e-
003

3.4000e-
003
136.6669
Total

0.0550

0.0349

0.5348

1.3400e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
135.5663
135.5663

3.5500e-
003

3.4000e-
003
136.6669
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 9 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.5908

0.0000

1.5908

0.1718

0.0000

0.1718

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

0.5952

0.5476

0.5476
2,375.156
9 2,375.156
9 0.7682
2,394.361
3 Total

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

1.5908

0.5952

2.1859

0.1718

0.5476

0.7193
2,375.156
9 2,375.156
9 0.7682
2,394.361
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0339

0.0215

0.3291

8.3000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

83.4254

2.1800e-
003

2.0900e-
003

84.1027
Total

0.0339

0.0215

0.3291

8.3000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

83.4254

2.1800e-
003

2.0900e-
003

84.1027
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 10 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.5908

0.0000

1.5908

0.1718

0.0000

0.1718

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

0.5952

0.5476

0.0000
2,375.156
9 2,375.156
9 0.7682
2,394.361
3 Total

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

1.5908

0.5952

2.1859

0.1718

0.5476

0.7193

0.0000
2,375.156
9 2,375.156
9 0.7682
2,394.361
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0339

0.0215

0.3291

8.3000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

83.4254

2.1800e-
003

2.0900e-
003

84.1027
Total

0.0339

0.0215

0.3291

8.3000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

83.4254

2.1800e-
003

2.0900e-
003

84.1027
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 11 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

7.0826

0.0000

7.0826

3.4247

0.0000

3.4247

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

0.7423

0.6829

0.6829
1,995.482
5 1,995.482
5 0.6454
2,011.616
9 Total

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

7.0826

0.7423

7.8249

3.4247

0.6829

4.1076
1,995.482
5 1,995.482
5 0.6454
2,011.616
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0423

0.0268

0.4114

1.0300e-
003

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302
104.2818
104.2818

2.7300e-
003

2.6100e-
003
105.1284
Total

0.0423

0.0268

0.4114

1.0300e-
003

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302
104.2818
104.2818

2.7300e-
003

2.6100e-
003
105.1284
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 12 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0826 0.7423 7.8249 3.4247 0.6829 4.1076 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0423 0.0268 0.4114 1.0300e-
003

0.1118 5.9000e-
004

0.1124 0.0296 5.4000e-
004

0.0302 104.2818 104.2818 2.7300e-
003

2.6100e-
003
105.1284
Total 0.0423 0.0268 0.4114 1.0300e-
003

0.1118 5.9000e-
004

0.1124 0.0296 5.4000e-
004

0.0302 104.2818 104.2818 2.7300e-
003

2.6100e-
003
105.1284
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 13 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.8555

14.6040

14.3533

0.0250

0.7022

0.6731

0.6731
2,289.281
3 2,289.281
3 0.4417
2,300.323
0 Total

1.8555

14.6040

14.3533

0.0250

0.7022

0.6731

0.6731
2,289.281
3 2,289.281
3 0.4417
2,300.323
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0279

0.7006

0.2571

2.9900e-
003

0.1025

8.3400e-
003

0.1109

0.0295

7.9700e-
003

0.0375
320.1101
320.1101

8.6500e-
003

0.0474
334.4430
Worker

0.1694

0.1073

1.6455

4.1300e-
003

0.4471

2.3400e-
003

0.4495

0.1186

2.1600e-
003

0.1207
417.1272
417.1272

0.0109

0.0105
420.5134
Total

0.1972

0.8079

1.9027

7.1200e-
003

0.5496

0.0107

0.5603

0.1481

0.0101

0.1582
737.2373
737.2373

0.0196

0.0578
754.9564
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 14 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0279 0.7006 0.2571 2.9900e-
003

0.1025 8.3400e-
003

0.1109 0.0295 7.9700e-
003

0.0375 320.1101 320.1101 8.6500e-
003

0.0474 334.4430
Worker 0.1694 0.1073 1.6455 4.1300e-
003

0.4471 2.3400e-
003

0.4495 0.1186 2.1600e-
003

0.1207 417.1272 417.1272 0.0109 0.0105 420.5134
Total 0.1972 0.8079 1.9027 7.1200e-
003

0.5496 0.0107 0.5603 0.1481 0.0101 0.1582 737.2373 737.2373 0.0196 0.0578 754.9564 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AMPage 15 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.5880
2,289.523
3 2,289.523
3 0.4330
2,300.347
9 Total

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.5880
2,289.523
3 2,289.523
3 0.4330
2,300.347
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0187

0.5612

0.2355

2.8600e-
003

0.1025

4.2200e-
003

0.1067

0.0295

4.0300e-
003

0.0336
307.0691
307.0691

8.0300e-
003

0.0454
320.7827
Worker

0.1563

0.0943

1.5044

3.9900e-
003

0.4471

2.2000e-
003

0.4493

0.1186

2.0300e-
003

0.1206
403.6045
403.6045

9.7600e-
003

9.6100e-
003
406.7123
Total

0.1750

0.6555

1.7399

6.8500e-
003

0.5496

6.4200e-
003

0.5560

0.1481

6.0600e-
003

0.1542
710.6736
710.6736

0.0178

0.0550
727.4950
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 16 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.0000
2,289.523
3 2,289.523
3 0.4330
2,300.347
9 Total

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.0000
2,289.523
3 2,289.523
3 0.4330
2,300.347
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0187

0.5612

0.2355

2.8600e-
003

0.1025

4.2200e-
003

0.1067

0.0295

4.0300e-
003

0.0336
307.0691
307.0691

8.0300e-
003

0.0454
320.7827
Worker

0.1563

0.0943

1.5044

3.9900e-
003

0.4471

2.2000e-
003

0.4493

0.1186

2.0300e-
003

0.1206
403.6045
403.6045

9.7600e-
003

9.6100e-
003
406.7123
Total

0.1750

0.6555

1.7399

6.8500e-
003

0.5496

6.4200e-
003

0.5560

0.1481

6.0600e-
003

0.1542
710.6736
710.6736

0.0178

0.0550
727.4950
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 17 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

0.8802

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.4003
1,709.992
6 1,709.992
6 0.5420
1,723.541
4 Paving

0.1624

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0426

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.4003
1,709.992
6 1,709.992
6 0.5420
1,723.541
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0586

0.0354

0.5641

1.5000e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
151.3517
151.3517

3.6600e-
003

3.6000e-
003
152.5171
Total

0.0586

0.0354

0.5641

1.5000e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
151.3517
151.3517

3.6600e-
003

3.6000e-
003
152.5171
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 18 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

0.8802

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.0000
1,709.992
6 1,709.992
6 0.5420
1,723.541
4 Paving

0.1624

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0426

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.0000
1,709.992
6 1,709.992
6 0.5420
1,723.541
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0586

0.0354

0.5641

1.5000e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
151.3517
151.3517

3.6600e-
003

3.6000e-
003
152.5171
Total

0.0586

0.0354

0.5641

1.5000e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
151.3517
151.3517

3.6600e-
003

3.6000e-
003
152.5171
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 19 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

64.0001

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0708
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Total

64.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0708
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0313

0.0189

0.3009

8.0000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

80.7209

1.9500e-
003

1.9200e-
003

81.3425
Total

0.0313

0.0189

0.3009

8.0000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

80.7209

1.9500e-
003

1.9200e-
003

81.3425
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 20 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

64.0001

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Total

64.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0313

0.0189

0.3009

8.0000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

80.7209

1.9500e-
003

1.9200e-
003

81.3425
Total

0.0313

0.0189

0.3009

8.0000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

80.7209

1.9500e-
003

1.9200e-
003

81.3425
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 21 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

0.6557

0.9141

7.0338

0.0161

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,637.626
5 1,637.626
5 0.0807

0.0724
1,661.224
9 Unmitigated

0.6557

0.9141

7.0338

0.0161

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,637.626
5 1,637.626
5 0.0807

0.0724
1,661.224
9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

0.00 0.00

0.00 Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40

6.90 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 22 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
Parking Lot

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 23 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

56.0453

6.0000e-
004

5.4900e-
003

4.6200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

6.5936

1.3000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

6.6327
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
8822.16

0.0951

0.8649

0.7265

5.1900e-
003

0.0657

0.0657
1,037.901
4 1,037.901
4 0.0199

0.0190
1,044.069
1 Total

0.0957

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 24 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.0560453

6.0000e-
004

5.4900e-
003

4.6200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

6.5936

1.3000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

6.6327
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

8.82216

0.0951

0.8649

0.7265

5.1900e-
003

0.0657

0.0657
1,037.901
4 1,037.901
4 0.0199

0.0190
1,044.069
1 Total

0.0957

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 25 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Unmitigated

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320

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

0.1753

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3604

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.2900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Total

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 26 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1753

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3604

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.2900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Total

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:10 AM

Page 27 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

Page 28 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Golden Land Industrial Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Land Use - Consistent with Agenda Report.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with Agenda Report,
179
trips.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

62.25 1000sqft

1.43 62,248.00
0 General Office Building

5.96 1000sqft

0.14 5,964.00
0 Parking Lot

69.00 Space

0.62 27,600.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2024
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.12 2.88
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 1 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

2.12 2.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 2 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0450

17.0118

15.9711

0.0318

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
2,987.535
8 2,987.535
8 0.7704

0.0582
3,016.420
1 2023

64.2219

14.3159

15.6954

0.0315

0.5496

0.6201

1.1697

0.1481

0.5941

0.7422

0.0000
2,962.994
6 2,962.994
6 0.5456

0.0554
2,990.773
3 Maximum

64.2219

17.0118

15.9711

0.0318

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
2,987.535
8 2,987.535
8 0.7704

0.0582
3,016.420
1 Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2022

2.0450

17.0118

15.9711

0.0318

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
2,987.535
8 2,987.535
8 0.7704

0.0582
3,016.420
1 2023

64.2219

14.3159

15.6954

0.0315

0.5496

0.6201

1.1697

0.1481

0.5941

0.7422

0.0000
2,962.994
6 2,962.994
6 0.5456

0.0554
2,990.773
3 Maximum

64.2219

17.0118

15.9711

0.0318

7.1944

0.8387

7.9372

3.4544

0.7836

4.1378

0.0000
2,987.535
8 2,987.535
8 0.7704

0.0582
3,016.420
1 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 3 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 4 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Energy

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Mobile

0.5789

0.9707

6.2229

0.0149

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,519.231
6 1,519.231
6 0.0819

0.0742
1,543.382
1 Total

2.2117

1.8413

6.9680

0.0201

1.6199

0.0782

1.6981

0.4320

0.0774

0.5095
2,563.756
6 2,563.756
6 0.1020

0.0933
2,594.116
0 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Energy

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Mobile

0.5789

0.9707

6.2229

0.0149

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,519.231
6 1,519.231
6 0.0819

0.0742
1,543.382
1 Total

2.2117

1.8413

6.9680

0.0201

1.6199

0.0782

1.6981

0.4320

0.0774

0.5095
2,563.756
6 2,563.756
6 0.1020

0.0933
2,594.116
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 5 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.00 0.00

Page 6 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Paving
Pavers
1 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
1 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Scrapers
1 8.00
367

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
3 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4 10.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
8 40.00

16.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 8.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 7 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.7829
2,323.416
8 2,323.416
8 0.5921
2,338.219
1 Total

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.7829
2,323.416
8 2,323.416
8 0.5921
2,338.219
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0529

0.0367

0.4393

1.2100e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
122.7822
122.7822

3.5400e-
003

3.5100e-
003
123.9153
Total

0.0529

0.0367

0.4393

1.2100e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
122.7822
122.7822

3.5400e-
003

3.5100e-
003
123.9153
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 8 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.0000
2,323.416
8 2,323.416
8 0.5921
2,338.219
1 Total

1.6889

16.6217

13.9605

0.0241

0.8379

0.7829

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0529

0.0367

0.4393

1.2100e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
122.7822
122.7822

3.5400e-
003

3.5100e-
003
123.9153
Total

0.0529

0.0367

0.4393

1.2100e-
003

0.1453

7.6000e-
004

0.1461

0.0385

7.0000e-
004

0.0392
122.7822
122.7822

3.5400e-
003

3.5100e-
003
123.9153
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 9 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.5908

0.0000

1.5908

0.1718

0.0000

0.1718

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

0.5952

0.5476

0.5476
2,375.156
9 2,375.156
9 0.7682
2,394.361
3 Total

1.3784

15.6673

10.0558

0.0245

1.5908

0.5952

2.1859

0.1718

0.5476

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0325

0.0226

0.2703

7.5000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

75.5583

2.1800e-
003

2.1600e-
003

76.2556
Total

0.0325

0.0226

0.2703

7.5000e-
004

0.0894

4.7000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.3000e-
004

0.0242

75.5583

2.1800e-
003

2.1600e-
003

76.2556
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 10 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 1.5908 0.5952 2.1859 0.1718 0.5476 0.7193 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0325 0.0226 0.2703 7.5000e-
004

0.0894 4.7000e-
004

0.0899 0.0237 4.3000e-
004

0.0242 75.5583 75.5583 2.1800e-
003

2.1600e-
003

76.2556
Total 0.0325 0.0226 0.2703 7.5000e-
004

0.0894 4.7000e-
004

0.0899 0.0237 4.3000e-
004

0.0242 75.5583 75.5583 2.1800e-
003

2.1600e-
003

76.2556
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 11 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

7.0826

0.0000

7.0826

3.4247

0.0000

3.4247

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

0.7423

0.6829

0.6829
1,995.482
5 1,995.482
5 0.6454
2,011.616
9 Total

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

7.0826

0.7423

7.8249

3.4247

0.6829

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0407

0.0282

0.3379

9.3000e-
004

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302

94.4478

2.7200e-
003

2.7000e-
003

95.3195
Total

0.0407

0.0282

0.3379

9.3000e-
004

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302

94.4478

2.7200e-
003

2.7000e-
003

95.3195
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 12 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

7.0826

0.0000

7.0826

3.4247

0.0000

3.4247

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

0.7423

0.6829

0.0000
1,995.482
5 1,995.482
5 0.6454
2,011.616
9 Total

1.5403

16.9836

9.2202

0.0206

7.0826

0.7423

7.8249

3.4247

0.6829

4.1076

0.0000
1,995.482
5 1,995.482
5 0.6454
2,011.616
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0407

0.0282

0.3379

9.3000e-
004

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302

94.4478

2.7200e-
003

2.7000e-
003

95.3195
Total

0.0407

0.0282

0.3379

9.3000e-
004

0.1118

5.9000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.4000e-
004

0.0302

94.4478

2.7200e-
003

2.7000e-
003

95.3195
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 13 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0268 0.7355 0.2662 2.9900e-
003

0.1025 8.3600e-
003

0.1109 0.0295 8.0000e-
003

0.0375 320.4632 320.4632 8.6000e-
003

0.0475 334.8192
Worker 0.1627 0.1128 1.3517 3.7400e-
003

0.4471 2.3400e-
003

0.4495 0.1186 2.1600e-
003

0.1207 377.7913 377.7913 0.0109 0.0108 381.2779
Total 0.1895 0.8483 1.6179 6.7300e-
003

0.5496 0.0107 0.5603 0.1481 0.0102 0.1583 698.2545 698.2545 0.0195 0.0582 716.0971 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 14 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.8555

14.6040

14.3533

0.0250

0.7022

0.6731

0.0000
2,289.281
3 2,289.281
3 0.4417
2,300.323
0 Total

1.8555

14.6040

14.3533

0.0250

0.7022

0.6731

0.0000
2,289.281
3 2,289.281
3 0.4417
2,300.323
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0268

0.7355

0.2662

2.9900e-
003

0.1025

8.3600e-
003

0.1109

0.0295

8.0000e-
003

0.0375
320.4632
320.4632

8.6000e-
003

0.0475
334.8192
Worker

0.1627

0.1128

1.3517

3.7400e-
003

0.4471

2.3400e-
003

0.4495

0.1186

2.1600e-
003

0.1207
377.7913
377.7913

0.0109

0.0108
381.2779
Total

0.1895

0.8483

1.6179

6.7300e-
003

0.5496

0.0107

0.5603

0.1481

0.0102

0.1583
698.2545
698.2545

0.0195

0.0582
716.0971
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 15 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0174 0.5928 0.2428 2.8700e-
003

0.1025 4.2300e-
003

0.1067 0.0295 4.0500e-
003

0.0336 307.8138 307.8138 7.9600e-
003

0.0455 321.5678
Worker 0.1506 0.0992 1.2382 3.6200e-
003

0.4471 2.2000e-
003

0.4493 0.1186 2.0300e-
003

0.1206 365.6575 365.6575 9.7700e-
003

9.9200e-
003
368.8576
Total 0.1680 0.6919 1.4810 6.4900e-
003

0.5496 6.4300e-
003

0.5561 0.1481 6.0800e-
003

0.1542 673.4713 673.4713 0.0177 0.0554 690.4254
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 16 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.0000
2,289.523
3 2,289.523
3 0.4330
2,300.347
9 Total

1.7136

13.6239

14.2145

0.0250

0.6136

0.5880

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0174

0.5928

0.2428

2.8700e-
003

0.1025

4.2300e-
003

0.1067

0.0295

4.0500e-
003

0.0336
307.8138
307.8138

7.9600e-
003

0.0455
321.5678
Worker

0.1506

0.0992

1.2382

3.6200e-
003

0.4471

2.2000e-
003

0.4493

0.1186

2.0300e-
003

0.1206
365.6575
365.6575

9.7700e-
003

9.9200e-
003
368.8576
Total

0.1680

0.6919

1.4810

6.4900e-
003

0.5496

6.4300e-
003

0.5561

0.1481

6.0800e-
003

0.1542
673.4713
673.4713

0.0177

0.0554
690.4254
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 17 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Paving 0.1624 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0426 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0565 0.0372 0.4643 1.3600e-
003

0.1677 8.3000e-
004

0.1685 0.0445 7.6000e-
004

0.0452 137.1216 137.1216 3.6600e-
003

3.7200e-
003
138.3216
Total 0.0565 0.0372 0.4643 1.3600e-
003

0.1677 8.3000e-
004

0.1685 0.0445 7.6000e-
004

0.0452 137.1216 137.1216 3.6600e-
003

3.7200e-
003
138.3216
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 18 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

0.8802

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.0000
1,709.992
6 1,709.992
6 0.5420
1,723.541
4 Paving

0.1624

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0426

8.6098

11.6840

0.0179

0.4338

0.4003

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0565

0.0372

0.4643

1.3600e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
137.1216
137.1216

3.6600e-
003

3.7200e-
003
138.3216
Total

0.0565

0.0372

0.4643

1.3600e-
003

0.1677

8.3000e-
004

0.1685

0.0445

7.6000e-
004

0.0452
137.1216
137.1216

3.6600e-
003

3.7200e-
003
138.3216
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 19 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

64.0001

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0708
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Total

64.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0708
281.4481
281.4481

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0301

0.0198

0.2476

7.2000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

73.1315

1.9500e-
003

1.9800e-
003

73.7715
Total

0.0301

0.0198

0.2476

7.2000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

73.1315

1.9500e-
003

1.9800e-
003

73.7715
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 20 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

64.0001

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0168
281.8690
Total

64.1917

1.3030

1.8111

2.9700e-
003

0.0708

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0301

0.0198

0.2476

7.2000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

73.1315

1.9500e-
003

1.9800e-
003

73.7715
Total

0.0301

0.0198

0.2476

7.2000e-
004

0.0894

4.4000e-
004

0.0899

0.0237

4.1000e-
004

0.0241

73.1315

1.9500e-
003

1.9800e-
003

73.7715
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 21 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.5789

0.9707

6.2229

0.0149

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,519.231
6 1,519.231
6 0.0819

0.0742
1,543.382
1 Unmitigated

0.5789

0.9707

6.2229

0.0149

1.6199

0.0120

1.6319

0.4320

0.0112

0.4433
1,519.231
6 1,519.231
6 0.0819

0.0742
1,543.382
1 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

0.00 0.00

0.00 Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40

6.90 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 22 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
Parking Lot

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail

0.540566

0.056059

0.172680

0.136494

0.026304

0.007104

0.011680

0.017449

0.000554

0.000251

0.025076

0.000954

0.004830

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0958

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 23 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

56.0453

6.0000e-
004

5.4900e-
003

4.6200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

6.5936

1.3000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

6.6327
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
8822.16

0.0951

0.8649

0.7265

5.1900e-
003

0.0657

0.0657
1,037.901
4 1,037.901
4 0.0199

0.0190
1,044.069
1 Total

0.0957

0.8704

0.7312

5.2200e-
003

0.0662

0.0662
1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200

0.0192
1,050.701
9 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 24 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building

0.0560453 6.0000e-
004

5.4900e-
003

4.6200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

6.5936 6.5936 1.3000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

6.6327
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

8.82216 0.0951 0.8649 0.7265 5.1900e-
003

0.0657 0.0657 0.0657 0.0657 1,037.901
4 1,037.901
4 0.0199 0.0190 1,044.069
1 Total 0.0957 0.8704 0.7312 5.2200e-
003

0.0662 0.0662 0.0662 0.0662 1,044.494
9 1,044.494
9 0.0200 0.0192 1,050.701
9 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 25 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.5370 1.3000e-
004

0.0140 0.0000 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0300 0.0300 8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Unmitigated 1.5370 1.3000e-
004

0.0140 0.0000 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0300 0.0300 8.0000e-
005

0.0320

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

0.1753 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3604 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.2900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

0.0140 0.0000 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0300 0.0300 8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Total 1.5370 1.3000e-
004

0.0140 0.0000 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0300 0.0300 8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 26 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1753

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3604

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.2900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Total

1.5370

1.3000e-
004

0.0140

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

0.0320
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AM

Page 27 of 28 ends

Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/16/2022 10:08 AMPage 28 of 28 Golden Land Industrial Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0129 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0143 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.070684932 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.078356164 Construction Duration (days) 56 Total DPM (lbs) 28.6
Total DPM (lbs) 3.958356164 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.00041137 Total DPM (g) 1795.510356 Release Height (meters) 3
Start Date 11/6/2022 Total Acreage 2.84
End Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters) 151.61
Construction Days 56 Min Horizontal (meters) 75.81
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0695 Setting Urban
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.380821918 Population 104,394 Construction Duration (days) 330
Total DPM (lbs) 125.6712329
Total DPM (g) 57004.47123
Start Date 1/1/2023
End Date 11/27/2023
Construction Days 330
Total DPM (lbs) 129.629589
Total DPM (g) 58799.98159
Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001763097
Release Height (meters) 3
Total Acreage 2.84
Max Horizontal (meters) 151.61
Min Horizontal (meters) 75.81
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Setting Urban
Population 104,394
Start Date 11/6/2022
End Date 11/27/2023
Total Construction Days 386
Total Years of Construction 1.06
Total Years of Operation 28.94
2023
Operation
2022
Total
Emission Rate
Construction
Attachment B
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 11/17/22
12:26:04
TITLE: Golden Land Industrial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.176E-02 g/s 0.140E-01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.153E-06 g/(s-m2) 0.122E-05 lb/(hr-m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 151.61 meters 497.41 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 75.81 meters 248.72 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 104394
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON-POINT SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
-----------------------------------------------------
1* 1.000 4.512 0 75.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment C
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT -------------------------------------------------------------

YR MO DY JDY HR
-- -- -- --- --
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - -

10.0 310.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1-HR CONC DIST 1-HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
--------------------- ---------------------

1.00 3.403 2525.00 0.3793E-01

25.00 3.842 2550.00 0.3742E-01

50.00 4.187 2575.00 0.3693E-01

75.00 4.512 2600.00 0.3644E-01 100.00 3.169 2625.00 0.3597E-01 125.00 2.239 2650.00 0.3550E-01 150.00 1.752 2675.00 0.3505E-01 175.00 1.423 2700.00 0.3461E-01 200.00 1.188 2725.00 0.3417E-01 225.00 1.013 2750.00 0.3375E-01 250.00 0.8779 2775.00 0.3333E-01 275.00 0.7718 2800.00 0.3292E-01 300.00 0.6861 2825.00 0.3253E-01 325.00 0.6154 2850.00 0.3214E-01 350.00 0.5566 2875.00 0.3175E-01 375.00 0.5073 2900.00 0.3138E-01 400.00 0.4645 2925.00 0.3101E-01 425.00 0.4278 2950.00 0.3065E-01 450.00 0.3959 2975.00 0.3030E-01 475.00 0.3680 3000.00 0.2996E-01 500.00 0.3432 3025.00 0.2962E-01 525.00 0.3212 3050.00 0.2929E-01 550.00 0.3016 3074.99 0.2896E-01 575.00 0.2839 3100.00 0.2864E-01 600.00 0.2680 3125.00 0.2833E-01 625.00 0.2535 3150.00 0.2802E-01 650.00 0.2403 3175.00 0.2772E-01 675.00 0.2282 3199.99 0.2742E-01 700.00 0.2172 3225.00 0.2713E-01 725.00 0.2071 3250.00 0.2685E-01 750.00 0.1977 3275.00 0.2657E-01 775.00 0.1891 3300.00 0.2629E-01 800.00 0.1811 3325.00 0.2602E-01 825.00 0.1737 3350.00 0.2576E-01 850.00 0.1668 3375.00 0.2550E-01 875.00 0.1604 3400.00 0.2524E-01 900.00 0.1544 3425.00 0.2499E-01 925.00 0.1487 3450.00 0.2474E-01 950.00 0.1434 3475.00 0.2450E-01 975.00 0.1384 3500.00 0.2426E-01 1000.00 0.1337 3525.00 0.2402E-01 1025.00 0.1292 3550.00 0.2379E-01 1050.00 0.1251 3575.00 0.2357E-01 1075.00 0.1211 3600.00 0.2334E-01 1100.00 0.1174 3625.00 0.2312E-01 1125.00 0.1138 3650.00 0.2291E-01 1150.00 0.1105 3675.00 0.2269E-01 1175.00 0.1073 3700.00 0.2248E-01 1200.00 0.1043 3725.00 0.2228E-01 1225.00 0.1014 3750.00 0.2207E-01 1250.00 0.9862E-01 3775.00 0.2187E-01 1275.00 0.9600E-01 3800.00 0.2168E-01 1300.00 0.9350E-01 3825.00 0.2148E-01 1325.00 0.9110E-01 3849.99 0.2129E-01 1350.00 0.8882E-01 3875.00 0.2111E-01 1375.00 0.8663E-01 3900.00 0.2092E-01 1400.00 0.8454E-01 3925.00 0.2074E-01 1425.00 0.8307E-01 3950.00 0.2056E-01 1450.00 0.8111E-01 3975.00 0.2038E-01 1475.00 0.7923E-01 4000.00 0.2021E-01 1500.00 0.7742E-01 4025.00 0.2004E-01 1525.00 0.7569E-01 4050.00 0.1987E-01 1550.00 0.7402E-01 4075.00 0.1970E-01 1575.00 0.7241E-01 4100.00 0.1954E-01 1600.00 0.7087E-01 4125.00 0.1938E-01 1625.00 0.6938E-01 4150.00 0.1922E-01 1650.00 0.6794E-01 4175.00 0.1906E-01 1675.00 0.6655E-01 4200.00 0.1890E-01 1700.00 0.6521E-01 4225.00 0.1875E-01 1725.00 0.6392E-01 4250.00 0.1860E-01 1750.00 0.6267E-01 4275.00 0.1845E-01 1775.00 0.6147E-01 4300.00 0.1830E-01 1800.00 0.6030E-01 4325.00 0.1816E-01 1825.00 0.5917E-01 4350.00 0.1802E-01 1850.00 0.5808E-01 4375.00 0.1788E-01 1875.00 0.5702E-01 4400.00 0.1774E-01 1900.00 0.5600E-01 4425.00 0.1760E-01 1924.99 0.5500E-01 4450.00 0.1747E-01 1950.00 0.5404E-01 4475.00 0.1733E-01 1975.00 0.5310E-01 4500.00 0.1720E-01 2000.00 0.5219E-01 4525.00 0.1707E-01 2025.00 0.5131E-01 4550.00 0.1694E-01 2050.00 0.5046E-01 4575.00 0.1682E-01 2075.00 0.4963E-01 4600.00 0.1669E-01 2100.00 0.4882E-01 4625.00 0.1657E-01 2125.00 0.4804E-01 4650.00 0.1645E-01 2150.00 0.4727E-01 4675.00 0.1633E-01 2175.00 0.4653E-01 4700.00 0.1621E-01 2200.00 0.4581E-01 4725.00 0.1609E-01 2225.00 0.4510E-01 4750.00 0.1598E-01 2250.00 0.4442E-01 4775.00 0.1586E-01 2275.00 0.4375E-01 4800.00 0.1575E-01 2300.00 0.4310E-01 4825.00 0.1564E-01 2325.00 0.4247E-01 4850.00 0.1553E-01 2350.00 0.4185E-01 4875.00 0.1542E-01 2375.00 0.4125E-01 4900.00 0.1531E-01 2400.00 0.4066E-01 4925.00 0.1520E-01 2425.00 0.4009E-01 4950.00 0.1510E-01 2449.99 0.3953E-01 4975.00 0.1500E-01 2475.00 0.3898E-01 5000.00 0.1489E-01 2500.00 0.3845E-01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA-454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- FLAT TERRAIN 4.525 4.525 4.525 4.525 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 77.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 3.403 3.403 3.403 3.403 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 11/17/22 12:33:41
TITLE: Golden Land Industrial, Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.411E-03 g/s 0.326E-02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.358E-07 g/(s-m2) 0.284E-06 lb/(hr-m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 151.61 meters 497.41 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 75.81 meters 248.72 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 104394
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
-----------------------------------------------------
1* 1.000 1.053 0 75.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT -------------------------------------------------------------

HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - -

10.0 310.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1-HR CONC DIST 1-HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
--------------------- ---------------------

1.00 0.7940 2525.00 0.8850E-02

25.00 0.8964 2550.00 0.8731E-02

50.00 0.9769 2575.00 0.8615E-02

75.00 1.053 2600.00 0.8502E-02 100.00 0.7394 2625.00 0.8391E-02 125.00 0.5224 2650.00 0.8283E-02 150.00 0.4088 2675.00 0.8177E-02 175.00 0.3320 2700.00 0.8074E-02 200.00 0.2772 2725.00 0.7973E-02 225.00 0.2364 2750.00 0.7873E-02 250.00 0.2048 2775.00 0.7777E-02 275.00 0.1801 2800.00 0.7682E-02 300.00 0.1601 2825.00 0.7589E-02 325.00 0.1436 2850.00 0.7498E-02 350.00 0.1299 2875.00 0.7409E-02 375.00 0.1184 2900.00 0.7321E-02 400.00 0.1084 2925.00 0.7236E-02 425.00 0.9980E-01 2950.00 0.7152E-02 450.00 0.9237E-01 2975.00 0.7070E-02 475.00 0.8586E-01 3000.00 0.6989E-02 500.00 0.8007E-01 3025.00 0.6910E-02 525.00 0.7494E-01 3050.00 0.6833E-02 550.00 0.7036E-01 3075.00 0.6757E-02 575.00 0.6623E-01 3100.00 0.6683E-02 600.00 0.6252E-01 3125.00 0.6610E-02 625.00 0.5915E-01 3150.00 0.6538E-02 650.00 0.5607E-01 3174.99 0.6468E-02 675.00 0.5325E-01 3200.00 0.6398E-02 700.00 0.5068E-01 3225.00 0.6331E-02 725.00 0.4831E-01 3250.00 0.6264E-02 750.00 0.4613E-01 3275.00 0.6199E-02 775.00 0.4412E-01 3300.00 0.6135E-02 800.00 0.4226E-01 3325.00 0.6072E-02 825.00 0.4054E-01 3350.00 0.6010E-02 850.00 0.3893E-01 3375.00 0.5949E-02 875.00 0.3742E-01 3400.00 0.5889E-02 900.00 0.3601E-01 3425.00 0.5830E-02 925.00 0.3470E-01 3450.00 0.5773E-02 950.00 0.3345E-01 3475.00 0.5716E-02 975.00 0.3229E-01 3500.00 0.5660E-02 1000.00 0.3119E-01 3525.00 0.5605E-02 1025.00 0.3015E-01 3550.00 0.5551E-02 1050.00 0.2918E-01 3575.00 0.5498E-02 1075.00 0.2826E-01 3600.00 0.5446E-02 1100.00 0.2739E-01 3625.00 0.5395E-02 1125.00 0.2656E-01 3650.00 0.5344E-02 1150.00 0.2578E-01 3675.00 0.5294E-02 1175.00 0.2503E-01 3700.00 0.5246E-02 1200.00 0.2432E-01 3724.99 0.5198E-02 1225.00 0.2365E-01 3750.00 0.5150E-02 1250.00 0.2301E-01 3775.00 0.5104E-02 1275.00 0.2240E-01 3800.00 0.5058E-02
1300.00 0.2181E-01 3825.00 0.5012E-02
1325.00 0.2126E-01 3849.99 0.4968E-02
1350.00 0.2072E-01 3875.00 0.4924E-02
1375.00 0.2021E-01 3900.00 0.4881E-02
1400.00 0.1972E-01 3925.00 0.4839E-02
1425.00 0.1938E-01 3950.00 0.4797E-02
1450.00 0.1892E-01 3975.00 0.4756E-02
1475.00 0.1848E-01 4000.00 0.4715E-02
1500.00 0.1806E-01 4025.00 0.4675E-02
1525.00 0.1766E-01 4050.00 0.4635E-02
1550.00 0.1727E-01 4075.00 0.4597E-02
1575.00 0.1689E-01 4100.00 0.4558E-02
1600.00 0.1653E-01 4125.00 0.4521E-02
1625.00 0.1619E-01 4149.99 0.4483E-02
1650.00 0.1585E-01 4175.00 0.4447E-02
1675.00 0.1553E-01 4200.00 0.4410E-02
1700.00 0.1522E-01 4225.00 0.4375E-02
1725.00 0.1491E-01 4250.00 0.4340E-02
1750.00 0.1462E-01 4275.00 0.4305E-02
1775.00 0.1434E-01 4300.00 0.4271E-02
1800.00 0.1407E-01 4325.00 0.4237E-02
1825.00 0.1381E-01 4350.00 0.4204E-02
1850.00 0.1355E-01 4375.00 0.4171E-02
1875.00 0.1330E-01 4400.00 0.4139E-02
1900.00 0.1306E-01 4425.00 0.4107E-02
1925.00 0.1283E-01 4450.00 0.4075E-02
1950.00 0.1261E-01 4475.00 0.4044E-02
1975.00 0.1239E-01 4500.00 0.4013E-02
2000.00 0.1218E-01 4525.00 0.3983E-02
2025.00 0.1197E-01 4550.00 0.3953E-02
2050.00 0.1177E-01 4575.00 0.3924E-02
2075.00 0.1158E-01 4600.00 0.3894E-02
2100.00 0.1139E-01 4625.00 0.3866E-02
2125.00 0.1121E-01 4650.00 0.3837E-02
2150.00 0.1103E-01 4675.00 0.3809E-02
2175.00 0.1086E-01 4700.00 0.3781E-02
2200.00 0.1069E-01 4725.00 0.3754E-02
2225.00 0.1052E-01 4750.00 0.3727E-02
2250.00 0.1036E-01 4775.00 0.3700E-02
2275.00 0.1021E-01 4800.00 0.3674E-02
2300.00 0.1006E-01 4825.00 0.3648E-02
2325.00 0.9908E-02 4850.00 0.3622E-02
2350.00 0.9764E-02 4875.00 0.3597E-02
2375.00 0.9624E-02 4900.00 0.3572E-02
2400.00 0.9487E-02 4925.00 0.3547E-02
2425.00 0.9353E-02 4950.00 0.3523E-02
2449.99 0.9223E-02 4975.00 0.3499E-02
2475.00 0.9095E-02 5000.00 0.3475E-02
2500.00 0.8971E-02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- FLAT TERRAIN 1.056 1.056 1.056 1.056 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 77.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.7940 0.7940 0.7940 0.7940 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G
, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Ch
aracterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment D
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for l arge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern C alifornia drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of r eleases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations t hroughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by t he former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of M TBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of p erchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water tr eatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against p rovisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in C alifornia and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including l arge hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

M
att served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with S ubtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the ba sis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA le gal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean W ater Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic N ational Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and a dvised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national w orkgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a n ational workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft an d snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action P lan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential f or the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water su pplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to gu idance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Cr itical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations wi th the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment E
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022

In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022

In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022

In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022

In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022

In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022

In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17 th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
EXHIBIT B
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

City Council for the City of Rialto (Mayor Deborah Robertson, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott, Council Member Rafael Trujillo, Council Member Andy Carrizales, Council Member Karla Perez)
22 January 2023

RE: Golden Land Warehouse

Dear Mayor Robertson and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to comment on the proposed CEQA Exemption applied to the proposed Golden Land Warehouse project, which I understand would add 62,248 sf of warehouse floor space and 5,964 sf of office space to 2.84 acres at the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and Stonehurst Drive.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-five years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT

On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University, Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2 hours and 57 minutes from 06:35 to 09:32 hours on 17 November 2022. She viewed the site from the site’s perimeter, scanning for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were omitted or recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Conditions were sunny with 13 MPH north wind and temperatures ranged 58―64° F.

The proposed project site is covered by California buckwheat scrub, Hollyleaf cherry, tree tobacco and trash and chunks of concrete (Photos 1 and 2). Although the site is 2 surrounded by warehouses and other industrial activities, which lessens habitat connectivity for non-volant wildlife, we expected it would attract volant wildlife whose “bird’s-eye view” would readily see it for its island of opportunities for foraging, roosting and stop-over refugia. We also expected that some species of wildlife reside there.

Photos 1 and 2. Views of the site of the proposed project, 17 November 2022. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

While at the site, Noriko detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 3 special- status species (Table 1). She saw Cooper’s hawk (Photo 3) and California gulls (Photos 4‒6), among other species. Noriko probably would have seen more species of wildlife had conditions not been so windy. Nevertheless, she saw enough of the wildlife community during her brief survey to confirm that the site amply provides habitat values to wildlife, and that the airspace over the project site is used by many birds for foraging, home range patrol and migratory movement.

3 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during survey on 17 November 2022.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Used shrubs for cover
California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL Large flocks in area Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Flew over
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Flew low over site Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
Common raven Corvus corax
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Used shrubs for cover Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Used shrubs for cover Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Flocks flew over Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Used shrubs for cover Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5).

Photo 3. Cooper’s hawk at the project site, 17 November 2022. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

4 Photos 4‒6. California gulls at the project site, including juvenile (top left), adult (top right), and an example of the large numbers visiting the project site, 17 November 2022. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

5 Reconnaissance-level surveys, such as the survey completed by Noriko, can be useful for confirming presence of species that were detected, but they can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey. To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). This pattern reflects the relative ease of detecting the most conspicuous species early during the survey, and the added time needed to detect the rarer and more cryptic of the species on site. In the case of Noriko’s survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts that had she spent more time on site, or had she help from additional biologists, she would have detected 18 species of vertebrate wildlife on the morning of the 17th of November. (She detected 15 species.) The pattern in the data indicates that Noriko’s quantification of the site’s species richness remained below the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from 46 other project sites she and I have surveyed in the Inland Empire region of California. This outcome likely reflected the effects of strong winds, which has the effect of suppressing avian activity. Species detections dropped off after an hour, which was typical of reconnaissance-level surveys, which can only sample the true species inventory of a site.

Figure 1. Actual (red
circles) and predicted (red
line) relationships between
the number of vertebrate
wildlife species detected and
the elapsed survey time
based on Noriko
Smallwood’s visual-scan
survey on 17 November
2022, and compared to the
95% CI of surveys at 46 other
sites she and I completed in
the Inland Empire region.

Note that the relationship
would differ if the survey
was based on another
method or during another
season.

The site supports more species of wildlife than Noriko could detect during a brief reconnaissance-level survey. However, although this modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Y
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 2.7
95% CI of visual-
scan surveys 2019-2022
Actual count of species
6 cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat.

By use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods Noriko and I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅𝑅� =
1 1 𝑎𝑎� +𝑏𝑏×(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻)𝑐𝑐 , where 𝑅𝑅� represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2).

On average I detected 12.6 species over the first 2.95 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (2.95 hours to match the number of hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 22.1% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 15 species Noriko detected after her 2.95 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 22.1% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, she would likely detect 15 0.221� = 68 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming her ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold with through the detections of all 68 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 14 special-status species of wildlife. On 17 November 2022, Noriko saw members of three special-status species of wildlife, one of which was present at the site for the purpose of hunting members of other bird species. Additional survey visits would reveal use of the site by even more special-status species.

7 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅𝑅�, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.

Again, however, my prediction of 68 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 14 special- status species of wildlife, is derived from a daytime visual-scan survey, and would not detect nocturnal mammals such as shrews and bats. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. Both the number of species Noriko saw at the project site and the number estimated to use the site over the longer term serve as substantial evidence that the site provides significant habitat value to wildlife. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA would be inappropriate for this project site. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community as a part of the existing environmental setting.

Noriko’s survey was only a cursory survey that can serve as a first step. More surveys are needed, including in each season of the year and during both day and night. Live- trapping for small mammals is also needed, as well as specialized surveys for bats.

Protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species are also likely to be needed.

In contrast, the City of Rialto completed no surveys for wildlife. The proposed CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption is founded on a purely speculative observation – lacking any evidentiary support – that the site “has no significant impact and no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species” (Page 63 of Planning Commission Agenda Packet, 9 November 2022). Neither does the City of Rialto (2010) General Plan support 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
8 the City’s speculative conclusion, as no surveys nor database review were completed for it. Noriko’s survey refutes the City’s speculative basis for the Exemption.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project’s site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of this project, these essential steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys

Jericho Systems (2019) completed a general biological resources assessment on 30 July 2019 to “determine whether the Project area supports special status or otherwise sensitive species and/ or their habitat.” More specifically, Jericho Systems’ (2019) objectives were to detect species of wildlife and to determine “expected wildlife usage of the site ... per known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area.” However, no guidelines exist for “general resources assessment,” and Jericho Systems (2019) provides no details about how determinations were made during the survey to link “known habitat preferences” to what was seen of the project site during the survey. In the brief time the biologist was on site, it is hard to imagine that habitat could have been accurately assessed for all of the potentially-occurring special-status species. If the biologist carried a check-off sheet for each species, each with a list of habitat elements to be checked as present (or not), then the completed check-off sheets should be reported. An alternative approach would have been for the biologist to have the presence of mind to think of each potentially-occurring special-status species of wildlife, and to examine environmental conditions at the site to determine presence of habitat. This approach, too, should have generated explanations of the determinations. After all, wild animals often defy the habitat associations they are assigned by environmental consultants, so the public needs to see which standards and criteria were used to assess habitat for each species at the site of the proposed project.

Habitat associations cited by environmental consultants often poorly comport with the habitat concept, which is that habitat is that part of the environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002). The habitat associations described by Jericho systems (2019) lack any citation to source, nor is there evidence provided that any of the habitat associations 9 were derived from actual measurements of any of the species’ use of the environment.

Nor does Jericho Systems (2019) provide a map of “highly-disturbed coastal sage scrub mixed with non-native grasses and native and non-native annuals and perennials.” It is therefore unclear how the biologist linked what he saw of the environmental setting to species’ occurrence likelihoods. This is important because the error rate is very high when it comes to biologists determining species’ occurrence likelihoods based on habitat associations, and a case in point involving raptors will be cited shortly.

The survey began at 16:30 hours and lasted 4 hours, having been completed by a biologist with many years of experience. A biologist with many years of experience, however, should know that 16:30 hours is during one of the worst times of the day to begin a survey if the objective is to detect wildlife (Figure 3). Wildlife activity would have been negligible until about the last hour of the survey period, making it more difficult for the biologist to detect species by sight or sound. For this and perhaps other reasons, Jericho Systems (2019) reported detections of only 5 species of vertebrate wildlife, none of them special-status species. In contrast, Noriko ― who began her survey at 06:35 hours ― detected three times the number of species in <3 hours, and three of these species were special-status species. Noriko’s rate of species detections per hour was 4 times greater than that of Jericho Systems (2019), which reflects a fundamental difference in approach to characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.

Figure 3. Effects of time
of day when
reconnaissance-level
survey is begun. Data
were from five 2-hour-
long surveys at the
Greentree site in Vacaville
and at the Kassis site in
Rancho Cordova in May
and June 2022.

Jericho Systems (2019:5) concludes, “The site is not suitable for use by raptors.” As I promised earlier, this is an example of the vulnerability to error with Jericho Systems’ Hour of day
Greentree
Kassis
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Species as proportion of
max number counted
10 (2019) approach to habitat assessment. During her short survey, Noriko clearly refuted Jericho Systems’ (2019) conclusion, as a Cooper’s hawk hunted the site (Photo 7).

Noriko also saw turkey vultures at the site. According to eBird, occurrence records exist of multiple species of raptors, including of northern harrier, red-shouldered hawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, burrowing owl, and American kestrel very close to the site (within 1.5 miles), and of osprey, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, sharp-shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, barn owl, great horned owl, merlin, prairie falcon and peregrine falcon nearby the site (within 1.5 and 4 miles). There is no reason why any of these species of raptor would not make use of the project site. Their occurrence records put them within 2 to 12 minutes of leisurely flight time. Jericho systems’ (2019) conclusion is not credible.

Photo 7. A Cooper’s
hawk lands on an
electric distribution line
along one edge of the
project site, and very
close to the
photographer, Noriko
Smallwood, 17
November 2022.

Database Review

Whether the project site likely supports special-status species can also be assessed by reviewing available databases of species occurrences. I reviewed eBird and iNaturalist, which revealed 104 potentially occurring special-status species of wildlife at the project site (Table 2). Of these 104 species, 3 were confirmed on site by Noriko’s survey, 13 (12.5%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 52 (50%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 36 (34.6%) within 4 and 30 miles (‘In region’). Two-thirds of the special-status species in Table 2 have been seen within 4

11 miles of the site. The odds are high that special-status species use the project site, and that the site provides habitat values to multiple special-status species.

Jericho Systems (2019) assessed the occurrence likelihoods of only 28 (27%) of the 104 species of wildlife that appear in my Table 2. Jericho Systems assigned a low-likelihood to all of these species, although two were assigned Low to Moderate likelihood. Of these 28 species, database records reveal that 3 were documented within 1.5 miles of the site, and 13 were documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. More than half (57%) of the special-status species assigned low likelihood of occurrence by Jericho Systems have been documented within 4 miles of the site. Thus, Jericho’s analysis of occurrence likelihoods does not comport with database records.

Although Jericho Systems (2019) had reportedly determined species occurrence likelihoods based on preferred habitat associations, the determinations were often based on other factors, probably because the existing environmental setting was often found to include the preferred habitat associations that Jericho Systems (2019) described. For example, the small patch size and isolated location of the habitat on site were reasons given for assigning low occurrence likelihoods to burrowing owl, California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Los Angeles pocket mouse. Jericho Systems (2019), however, reports no minimum patch size and no level of isolation as thresholds of occurrence for any of these species.

Jericho Systems (2019) often pigeonholes species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which are then implied to be absent from the site. In these cases, Jericho Systems (2019) summarily concludes the habitat on site is unsuitable. This is done for tricolored blackbird, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, coastal whiptail, orange-throated whiptail, southern California legless lizard, two-striped gartersnake, California glossy snake, Bell’s sage sparrow, burrowing owl, oak titmouse, Swainson’s hawk, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego banded gecko, red-diamond rattlesnake, San Bernardino ringneck snake, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, California horned lark, western mastiff bat, merlin, western yellow bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat, southern grasshopper mouse, coast horned lizard, least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, yellow warbler, western spadefoot, American badger. For none of these species does Jericho Systems (2019) report exactly what is unsuitable about the existing environmental setting of the project site. Based on my own experience, I cannot see any reason why the site would not be used by coastal whiptail, Bell’s sage sparrow, burrowing owl. Swainson’s hawk, California horned lark, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit and multiple other species summarily dismissed by Jericho Systems (2019).

Jericho Systems (2019) often minimalizes occurrence likelihoods for the reason that habitat on site is disturbed or highly disturbed. This approach to assigning low likelihoods of occurrence was applied to Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and California gnatcatcher. However, no explanation is offered for how the disturbed nature of the habitat diminished occurrence likelihoods, or what 12 comprised the disturbance in the first place. In my experience, disturbance actually increases the likelihoods of occurrence of many species.

Considering what Noriko saw during her brief survey at the project site, as well as the model prediction of 68 species using the site over the longer term, and considering the numerous documented occurrences of special-status species within 4 miles of the site, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR. An accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting is needed as a suitable baseline against which analysis of potential project impacts to wildlife can be completed. Protocol-level detection surveys need to be completed for multiple special-status species.

The characterization of the environmental setting should include the environments along the reaches of road to be used by the project-generated traffic resulting in 179 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or an annual VMT of 65,335. This VMT would jeopardize many wild animals with collision mortality well beyond the project building’s footprint. Once the characterization of the environmental setting includes the environments along the roadways servicing the project, an impacts analysis would be appropriate. An EIR should be prepared to include this analysis.

Thank you for your attention,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED

City of Rialto. 2010. The City of Rialto General Plan. Rialto, California.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Jericho Systems. 2019. Biological resources assessment and jurisdictional delineation TD Management Trucking Facility, Locust Avenue and Stone Hurst Drive City of Rialto, CA. Report prepared for Crystal Martinez, Andresen Architecture, Fontana, California.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
13 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www. inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.

Common name

Species name

Status1
Jericho
(2019)
potential
to occur
Data base
records,
Site visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low In region
Delhi sands flower-
loving fly
Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
FE Low In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Low Nearby
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low Nearby Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Low Nearby San Diegan legless
lizard
Anniella stebbinsi SSC Low Nearby
California glossy
snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Low In region
Coast patch-nosed
snake
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
SSC In region
Two-striped
gartersnake
Thamnophis hammondii SSC Low In region
Redhead Aythya americana SSC Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL In region Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus WL, BCC On site
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby
14 Common name

Species name

Status1
Jericho
(2019)
potential
to occur
Data base
records,
Site visits
American white
pelican
Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby
California brown
pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL,
BOP
Nearby
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA,

CFP, BOP
Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA,

BCC, CFP
Nearby
Red-shouldered
hawk
Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Low Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,
BOP
Low-Mod Very close
Long-eared owl Asio Otis SSC3 In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Low Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP,
BCC
Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL,
BOP
Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Nearby
15 Common name

Species name

Status1
Jericho
(2019)
potential
to occur
Data base
records,
Site visits
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax trailii extimus FE, CE In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Low Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Low Nearby
California horned
lark
Eremophila alpestris actia WL Low Very close
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Nearby
California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC Low Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned
sparrow
Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC Low Nearby
Oregon vesper
sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC Very close
Southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
WL Low Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Nearby
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Nearby
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC,
SSC
Low Nearby
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC, BCC Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Low Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,
WBWG:H
In region
Townsend’s big-
eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii SSC,
WBWG:H
In region
16 Common name

Species name

Status1
Jericho
(2019)
potential
to occur
Data base
records,
Site visits
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC,
WBWG:H
In region
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC,
WBWG:H
Low In region
Western small-footed
myotis
Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In region
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Nearby
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC,
WBWG:H
Low In region
San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Low In region
Northwestern San
Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Low In region
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriami
parvus

FE, CCE,
SSC
In region
Stephens’ kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT Low In region
Los Angeles pocket
mouse
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Low-Mod In region
San Diego desert
woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Low In region
Southern
grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus
ramona
SSC Low In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Low Nearby
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).

1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist

Expertise

• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;

• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;

• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education

Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results

Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV

2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV

3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects

Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV

4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV

5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV

6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV

7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844

Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

EXHIBIT C

November 9, 2022

Via E-Mail
John Peukert, Chair
Frank N. Gonzalez, Vice Chair
Jerry Gutierrez, Commissioner
Dale Estvander, Commissioner
BarBara L. Chavez, Commissioner
Artist Gilbert, Commissioner
City of Rialto
150 S Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]
Daniel Rosas, Associate Planner
City of Rialto
150 S Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]

Re: Comment on PC-22-01003 - Golden Land Warehouse (C onditional Development Permit No. 2021-0047, Precise Plan Design No. 2021-0061)

Dear Chair Peukert, Vice Chair Gonzalez, and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the Golden Land Warehouse, a 62,248 square foot industrial building proposed for the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and Stonehurst Drive in the Rialto (Conditional Development Permit No. 2021-0047, Precise Plan Design No. 2021-0061, Environmental Assessment Review No. 2021-0060) (“Project”).

SAFER objects to the City of Rialto’s (“City”) decision to exempt the Project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. As demonstrated below, the Class 32 exemption is inapplicable because (1) the Class 32 exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the unusual circumstances exception to the exemption applies. Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is a 62,248 square foot industrial commerce building. The truck court will accommodate up to six trucks and trailers and 63 passenger vehicles. Trucks will constitute approximately 115 of the 179 potential daily trips. According to the Staff Report, there is no proposed tenant for the project at this time, but the design of the building will accommodate various storage and distribution uses.

Golden Land Warehouse
City of Rialto
November 9, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 (Pocket Protectors). The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v.

Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.

To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 (“Hollywoodland”). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. Id. Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125. The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Golden Land Warehouse
City of Rialto
November 9, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing

Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”)

Here, the City is relying on the Class 32 in-fill exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332. However, as discussed below, this exemption is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR, must be prepared for this Project.

III. DISCUSSION

a. The Class 32 Exemption Does not Apply on its Face.

The Class 32 exemption provides:

Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].

By its terms, the exemption does not apply if the project site has any value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the exemption does not apply if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 14 CCR § 15332(d).

Here, there is no evidence that the Project falls within the language of the exemption.

Specifically, there is no evidence that the vacant Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Moreover, there is no evidence that adding a warehouse to the site, when combined with the other industrial development in the area, will not have air quality impacts and impacts on the health of residential neighbors just one block away, or the health of students attending Wilmer Amina Carter High School, just two blocks away.

Golden Land Warehouse
City of Rialto
November 9, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing

Here, the exemption cannot apply because there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on air quality.

IV. CONCLUSION

Reliance on the Class 32 exemption is improper and unsupported by any evidence. The City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Rebecca L. Davis

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Rialto City CouncilFebruary 28, 2023

Rialto City Council
February 28, 2023