San Jacinto City Council
July 21, 2026

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

A. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts would result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance.

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

B. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by SCAG, 2020, includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of San Jacinto Land Use Plans define the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The City of San Jacinto General Plan identifies the land use designation of the site as Community Commercial.

The proposed project is a commercial and retail development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an inconsistency with the land use designation in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
44 proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

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

Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
45 7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis

7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 12. The emissions are from all phases of construction. The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 5.22 metric tons of CO2e per year. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity
Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Onsite Offsite Total
Site Preparation 24.10 1.08 25.18
Grading 42.00 11.73 53.73
Building Construction 142.00 66.40 208.40
Paving 5.50 1.33 6.83
Coating 1.09 0.84 1.93
Total 214.69 81.38 296.07
Averaged over 30 years2 7.16 2.71 9.87
Notes:

1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).

2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD. * CalEEMod output (Appendix A)

7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. The operational emissions for the project are 16,594 metric tons of CO2e per year as shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Area Sources2 0.00 2.32 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33
Energy Usage3 0.00 599.00 599.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 601.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 15,292.00 15,292.00 0.70 0.76 26.20 15,561.00 Solid Waste5 23.10 0.00 23.10 2.31 0.00 0.00 81.00
Water6 3.53 18.30 21.80 0.36 0.01 0.00 33.50
Refrigeration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 305.00 305.00
Construction7 0.00 9.77 9.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.87
Total Emissions 26.63 15,921.39 15,947.99 3.41 0.77 331.20 16,593.70 Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.20
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
46 7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The City of San Jacinto is participating the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan.

The WRCOG Subregional CAP establishes a community-wide emissions reduction target of 15% below 2010, following guidance from CARB and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CARB and the California Attorney General have determined this approach to be consistent with the state-wide AB 32 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels.

As shown in Table 14, the project is consistent with applicable local reduction measures identified in the WRCOG Subregional CAP and would result in a less than significant impact.

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

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

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

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

Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
47 a low carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and costeffective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources.

These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

As the latest, 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed in Table 15. As shown in Table 15, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the project will also comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of San Jacinto’s policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan). With incorporation of regulatory compliance and credit for reductions due to CAPCOA location-based efficiency measures, impacts are considered to be less than significant, further analysis is not warranted.

Table 14: Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison1 WRCOG Local
Reduction Measure Measure Description Project Compliance with Measure E-1: Energy Action Plan
Improve municipal and community wide
energy efficiency and reduce energy
consumption through the adoption of
local Energy Action Plans (EAP).

Not directly applicable to the project; however, the
project will be compliant with the current Title 24
standards.

E-3: Shade Trees Strategically plant trees to reduce the urban heat island effect.

The proposed project is to include trees per City
requirements for new developments.

T-2: Bicycle Parking Provide additional options for bicycle parking.

The proposed project will follow City requirements
for bicycle parking.

T-8: Density
Improve jobs-housing balance and reduce
vehicle miles traveled by increasing
household and employment densities.

The proposed project is commercial and located
within 0.25 miles of a residential community.

T-10: Design/Site
Planning
Design neighborhoods and sites to reduce
VMT.

The proposed project is commercial and located
within 0.25 miles of a residential community.

T-14: Voluntary
Transportation Demand
Management
Reduce demand for roadway travel
through incentives for alternative modes
of transportation and disincentives for
driving
The proposed project is commercial and located
within 0.25 miles of a residential community.

SW-1: Yard Waste
Collection
Provide green waste collection bins
community-wide.

The project will be required to comply with City
programs, such as City’s recycling and waste
reduction program, which comply, with the 75
percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
48 WRCOG Local
Reduction Measure Measure Description Project Compliance with Measure SW-2: Food Scrap and
Paper Division
Divert food and paper waste from
landfills by implementing collection
system.

The project will be required to comply with City
programs, such as City’s recycling and waste
reduction program, which comply, with the 75
percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
1 Source: WRCOG Subregional Climate Action Plan (2014).

Table 15: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase
of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

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

Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

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

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

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

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavyduty vehicle efficiency measures.Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

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

Consistent. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11
establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and design for
sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The project will be subject to these mandatory standards.

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

Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial refrigeration
systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will comply with the strategy.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
49 Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at
landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and
commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.

Consistent. The state is currently developing a regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction
program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction
required by 2020 per AB 341.

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

Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG
stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean Car regulations.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

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

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean
Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined
innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission
technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030.

Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty lowNOX standard.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery:

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

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

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

Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

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

Consistent. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction
program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction
required by 2020 per AB 341.

Notes:
1 Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008 and 2017)
The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
50 8.0 Energy Analysis
Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands.

8.1 Construction Energy Demand

8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)1, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 114,523 square feet of new commercial space over the course of approximately 8 months. Based on Table 16, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $2,125.55. As shown in Table 16, the total electricity usage from Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 38,646 kWh.2 Table 16: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 114.523 8 $2,125.55
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 38,646
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE. 1 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 2 LADWP’s Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service (A-1) is approximately $0.06 per kWh of electricity Southern California Edison (SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce - doclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general-service-&-industrial-rates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS-1_2020.pdf The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
51 8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr-gal.3 As presented in Table 17 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 21,687 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table 17: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/
day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1
Site
Preparation
10 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 3,523 1,904
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 995 538
Grading
14 Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 219 166
14 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 367
14 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 889
14 Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 3,249 2,458
14 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 497 376
Building
Construction
130 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 5,235
130 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 394 2,766
130 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 582
130 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 653 4,586
130 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 1,164
Paving
8 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 544 235
8 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 513 222
8 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 95
Architectural
Coating 18 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 104
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 21,687 Notes:
1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) 3 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp -hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines:
(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf).

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
52 8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways.

With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 104,314 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix B for details). Table 18 shows that an estimated 3,365 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.

Table 18: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 17.5 18.5 3,238 30.95 105
Grading 14 20.0 18.5 5,180 31.95 162
Building Construction 130 37.9 18.5 91,152 30.95 2,945
Paving 8 15.0 18.5 2,220 30.95 72
Architectural Coating 18 7.6 18.5 2,524 30.95 82
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 3,365
Notes:
1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 defaults.

8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 19 and 20 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 31,297 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.4 Tables 19 and 20 show that an estimated 3,519 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips.
<Tables 19 and 20, next page>
4 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicl es with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy -duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix B for details).

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
53 Table 19: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Phase
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Grading 14 0 10.2 0 10.22 0
Building Construction 130 18.8 10.2 24,889 9.22 2,699
Paving 8 5.0 10.2 408 9.22 44
Architectural Coating 18 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 2,744
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 defaults.

Table 20: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 Phase
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 0 20 0 6.74 0
Grading 14 21.4 20 6,000 7.74 775
Building Construction 130 0 20 0 6.74 0
Paving 8 0 20 0 6.74 0
Architectural Coating 18 0 20 0 6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 775
Notes:
1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 defaults.

8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Construction equipment used over the approximately 8-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.

Construction of the proposed commercial development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies).

Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
54 8.2 Operational Energy Demand
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is located in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, it is assumed that an average trip length would be 9.7 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, as the proposed project is a commercial project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 21 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.5 Table 21 shows that an estimated 2,257,495 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.

Table 21: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption1 Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)2
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 3,907 9.7 37,894 31.82 1190.90 434,677 Light Truck Automobile 683 9.7 6,626 27.16 243.95 89,044 Light Truck Automobile 2,104 9.7 20,409 25.6 797.23 290,988 Medium Truck Automobile 1,681 9.7 16,310 20.81 783.77 286,077 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 315 9.7 3,053 13.81 221.06 80,688 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 1,766 9.7 17,128 14.18 1207.92 440,890 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 139 9.7 1,349 9.58 140.81 51,396 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 1,177 9.7 11,419 7.14 1599.28 583,736 Total 11,772 -- 114,188 -- 6184.92 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 2,257,495
Notes:
'1 The project is to generate 11,772 total net new trips after reduction of existing uses. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized. 2 Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.

Trip generation generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the traffic data. That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. 5 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix B for EMFAC output.

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
55 8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 22.

Table 22: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 87,247
Strip Mall 551,917
Automobile Care Center 154,149
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,430,412
Total 2,223,725
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 166,750
Strip Mall 909,434
Automobile Care Center 34,343
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 440,376
Parking Lot 440,731
Total 1,991,634
Notes:
1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 annual output.

As shown in Table 22, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 1,991,634 kWh per year. In 2022, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 8,720 million kWh of electricity.6In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 2,223,725 kBTU per year. In 2022, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 147 million therms of gas.7 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand.

8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area.

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

Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for 6 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 7 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Energy Analysis
56 energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE and Southern California Gas Company.

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

The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA Health Risk Assessment
57 9.0 Health Risk Assessment
CARB (and CAPCOA) recommend a 50-foot separation between gas stations and sensitive receptors; therefore, the separation of over 350 feet from the property line of the single-family residential dwelling unit to the south to the fueling canopy as well as the underground storage tanks should be more than adequate. Furthermore, the attached (Appendix C) SCAQMD gasoline station HRA screening tables show that the MICR at residential receptors 100 meters (the fueling canopy is located approximately 107 meters away) from the fuel source would not even exceed 0.603 in a million (per 1,000,000 gallons of throughput). Given the size of the proposed project and the number of pumps, a conservative assumption would be an estimated annual through put per year of approximately 10MM gallons of gasoline, which equates to an approximate 6.03 in a million MICR, at a conservative distance of 100 meters. The risk is below SCAQMD’s 10 in a million threshold and therefore no additional mitigation is required.

Furthermore, the project includes the construction and operation of a convenience market with 26 fuel pumps. The fuel pump-portion of the project will be permitted by SCAQMD and fuel-related emissions will be regulated by the SCAQMD Rule 461 and be required to obtain a Permit To Operate. Gasoline dispensing facilities are required to use Phase I/II EVR (enhanced vapor recovery) systems. Phase II EVR have an average efficiency of 95.1 percent and Phase I EVR have an average efficiency of 98 percent. Therefore, the potential for fugitive VOC or TAC emissions from the gasoline pumps is negligible. As such, the project will not be a source of toxic air contaminants or fugitive VOC emissions and sensitive receptors (located as close as approximately 820 feet from the proposed gasoline fueling pumps) would not be exposed to toxic sources of air pollution. The separating distance between the gas station and closest sensitive receptors is greater than the SCAQMD’s minimum 50-foot separation.

According to the ARB’s: Revised Emission Factors for Gasoline Marketing Operations at California Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (12/23/2013)8, both Phase I and Phase II EVR systems have a minimum

95.1% efficiency at capturing emissions. Emission inventory is based upon two (2) factors: 8.4 lbs of TOG per thousand gallons dispensed (lbs/kgal) and 0.74 lbs/kgal for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities with Phase II pre-EVR vapor recovery.

These factors are based upon pre-EVR vapor recovery systems. Assuming a 95% vapor recovery rate, the majority of the emissions would be captured and the additional VOCs that would potentially escape these mandatory recovery systems is anticipated to be relatively small. Per Table 10, the project’s operational VOC emissions are 53.37 lbs/day. The vehicle fueling emissions factor with ORVR and Phase II EVR in place is 0.021 lbs per thousand gallons which equates to 0.575 lbs/day at 27,397 gallons per day. This puts total VOC emissions at 53.95 lbs/day, below the VOC threshold of significance. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. Furthermore, both ORVR and Phase II EVRs are required per regulation in California.
8 https://www.arb.ca.gov/vapor/gdf-emisfactor/gdf%20umbrella%20document%20-%2020%20nov%202013.pdf The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA References
58 10.0 References
The following references were used in the preparing this analysis.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
2009 Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects California Air Resources Board
2008 Resolution 08-43
2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act
2008 ARB Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk – Frequently Asked Questions
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. 2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document 2013 Revised Emission Factors for Gasoline Marketing Operations at California Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May. 2018 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary
County of Riverside
2015 County of Riverside General Plan. December 8.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
2008 CEQA and Climate: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review
2009 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines South Coast Air Quality Management District
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook
The Magnet Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of San Jacinto, CA References
59 2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
2007 2007 Air Quality Management Plan
2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised 2011 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod
2012 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
2016 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
Appendix A:

CalEEMod Emission Output
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
1 / 80
The Magnet Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
2 / 80

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.10. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
3 / 80

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
4 / 80

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
5 / 80

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
6 / 80

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
7 / 80

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
8 / 80

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
9 / 80

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name The Magnet
Construction Start Date 4/2/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 22.4
Location 33.8013518728949, -116.97037587736736
County Riverside-South Coast
City San Jacinto
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5573
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
10 / 80
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps

8.00 Pump 0.03 5,198 0.00 — — —
Strip Mall 93.2 1000sqft 2.14 93,195 0.00 — — —
Automobile Care
Center

3.59 1000sqft 0.08 3,589 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 11.6 Acre 11.6 0.00 1.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

12.5 1000sqft 0.29 12,541 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.07 1.60 19.9 21.5 1.47 10.2 11.6 — 8,387 8,387 0.31 0.31 4.32 8,490 Mit. 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.07 1.60 5.34 6.94 1.47 2.68 4.15 — 8,387 8,387 0.31 0.31 4.32 8,490 %
Reduced
— — — — — 73% 68% — 74% 64% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
11 / 80
Unmit. 66.9 12.1 15.7 0.03 0.51 0.66 1.16 0.47 0.16 0.63 — 3,482 3,482 0.13 0.13 0.10 3,523 Mit. 66.9 12.1 15.7 0.03 0.51 0.66 1.16 0.47 0.16 0.63 — 3,482 3,482 0.13 0.13 0.10 3,523 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.15 6.92 8.12 0.01 0.29 1.16 1.45 0.27 0.48 0.75 — 1,767 1,767 0.07 0.06 0.69 1,787 Mit. 4.15 6.92 8.12 0.01 0.29 0.50 0.79 0.27 0.18 0.44 — 1,767 1,767 0.07 0.06 0.69 1,787 %
Reduced
— — — — — 57% 45% — 64% 41% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.76 1.26 1.48 < 0.005 0.05 0.21 0.27 0.05 0.09 0.14 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.11 296 Mit. 0.76 1.26 1.48 < 0.005 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.08 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.11 296 %
Reduced
— — — — — 57% 45% — 64% 41% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.07 1.60 19.9 21.5 1.47 10.2 11.6 — 8,387 8,387 0.31 0.31 4.32 8,490 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 66.9 12.1 15.7 0.03 0.51 0.66 1.16 0.47 0.16 0.63 — 3,482 3,482 0.13 0.13 0.10 3,523 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
12 / 80
2024 4.15 6.92 8.12 0.01 0.29 1.16 1.45 0.27 0.48 0.75 — 1,767 1,767 0.07 0.06 0.69 1,787 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.76 1.26 1.48 < 0.005 0.05 0.21 0.27 0.05 0.09 0.14 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.11 296

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.07 1.60 5.34 6.94 1.47 2.68 4.15 — 8,387 8,387 0.31 0.31 4.32 8,490 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 66.9 12.1 15.7 0.03 0.51 0.66 1.16 0.47 0.16 0.63 — 3,482 3,482 0.13 0.13 0.10 3,523 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.15 6.92 8.12 0.01 0.29 0.50 0.79 0.27 0.18 0.44 — 1,767 1,767 0.07 0.06 0.69 1,787 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.76 1.26 1.48 < 0.005 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.08 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.11 296

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.4 44.8 406 0.96 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.73 20.5 21.3 161 101,161 101,322 20.5 4.45 2,209 105,371 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
13 / 80
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 49.1 47.9 339 0.90 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.72 20.5 21.3 161 95,233 95,395 20.6 4.60 1,851 99,134 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 49.2 48.8 355 0.91 0.77 79.8 80.5 0.73 20.3 21.0 161 96,103 96,264 20.7 4.65 2,000 100,165 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.98 8.91 64.7 0.17 0.14 14.6 14.7 0.13 3.70 3.83 26.7 15,911 15,938 3.42 0.77 331 16,583

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 49.7 44.1 400 0.95 0.72 80.9 81.6 0.68 20.5 21.2 — 97,415 97,415 4.06 4.38 367 99,188 Area 3.64 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 53.4 44.8 406 0.96 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.73 20.5 21.3 161 101,161 101,322 20.5 4.45 2,209 105,371 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 46.2 47.3 338 0.89 0.72 80.9 81.6 0.68 20.5 21.2 — 91,508 91,508 4.24 4.53 9.52 92,972 Area 2.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
14 / 80
Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 49.1 47.9 339 0.90 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.72 20.5 21.3 161 95,233 95,395 20.6 4.60 1,851 99,134 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 45.8 48.2 351 0.90 0.72 79.8 80.5 0.68 20.3 20.9 — 92,363 92,363 4.25 4.57 158 93,989 Area 3.38 0.03 3.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 49.2 48.8 355 0.91 0.77 79.8 80.5 0.73 20.3 21.0 161 96,103 96,264 20.7 4.65 2,000 100,165 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 8.36 8.80 64.0 0.16 0.13 14.6 14.7 0.12 3.70 3.82 — 15,292 15,292 0.70 0.76 26.2 15,561 Area 0.62 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 Energy 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 599 599 0.04 < 0.005 — 601 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.53 18.3 21.8 0.36 0.01 — 33.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 23.1 0.00 23.1 2.31 0.00 — 81.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 305 305
Total 8.98 8.91 64.7 0.17 0.14 14.6 14.7 0.13 3.70 3.83 26.7 15,911 15,938 3.42 0.77 331 16,583

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
15 / 80
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 49.7 44.1 400 0.95 0.72 80.9 81.6 0.68 20.5 21.2 — 97,415 97,415 4.06 4.38 367 99,188 Area 3.64 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 53.4 44.8 406 0.96 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.73 20.5 21.3 161 101,161 101,322 20.5 4.45 2,209 105,371 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 46.2 47.3 338 0.89 0.72 80.9 81.6 0.68 20.5 21.2 — 91,508 91,508 4.24 4.53 9.52 92,972 Area 2.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 49.1 47.9 339 0.90 0.77 80.9 81.7 0.72 20.5 21.3 161 95,233 95,395 20.6 4.60 1,851 99,134 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 45.8 48.2 351 0.90 0.72 79.8 80.5 0.68 20.3 20.9 — 92,363 92,363 4.25 4.57 158 93,989 Area 3.38 0.03 3.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Energy 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 3,615 3,615 0.24 0.02 — 3,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,842 1,842
Total 49.2 48.8 355 0.91 0.77 79.8 80.5 0.73 20.3 21.0 161 96,103 96,264 20.7 4.65 2,000 100,165 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
16 / 80
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 8.36 8.80 64.0 0.16 0.13 14.6 14.7 0.12 3.70 3.82 — 15,292 15,292 0.70 0.76 26.2 15,561 Area 0.62 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 Energy 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 599 599 0.04 < 0.005 — 601 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.53 18.3 21.8 0.36 0.01 — 33.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 23.1 0.00 23.1 2.31 0.00 — 81.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 305 305
Total 8.98 8.91 64.7 0.17 0.14 14.6 14.7 0.13 3.70 3.83 26.7 15,911 15,938 3.42 0.77 331 16,583

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
17 / 80
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.00 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
18 / 80
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
19 / 80
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.00 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
20 / 80
Onsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45— 1.45 1.33— 1.33— 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05— 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 9.21 9.21— 3.66 3.66———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.13 1.32 1.16 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05— 253 253 0.01 < 0.005— 254 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.35 0.35— 0.14 0.14———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.24 0.21 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 41.9 41.9 < 0.005 < 0.005— 42.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.06 0.06— 0.03 0.03———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
21 / 80
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 288 288 0.01 0.01 1.14 292 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.70 0.41 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,501 1,501 0.03 0.24 3.18 1,577 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 60.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.53 9.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.0

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

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
22 / 80
Dust————— 2.40 2.40— 0.95 0.95———————
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

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

0.13 1.32 1.16 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05— 253 253 0.01 < 0.005— 254 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.09 0.09— 0.04 0.04———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.24 0.21 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 41.9 41.9 < 0.005 < 0.005— 42.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.02 0.02— 0.01 0.01———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06— 288 288 0.01 0.01 1.14 292 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.70 0.41 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14— 1,501 1,501 0.03 0.24 3.18 1,577 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
23 / 80
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 60.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.53 9.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.0

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

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

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
24 / 80
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.43 4.00 4.67 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 854 854 0.03 0.01 — 857 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 546 546 0.02 0.02 2.16 554 Vendor 0.02 0.66 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 583 583 0.01 0.09 1.64 611 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.22 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 501 501 0.02 0.02 0.06 508 Vendor 0.02 0.69 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 583 583 0.01 0.09 0.04 610 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 0.33 183 Vendor 0.01 0.25 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 208 208 < 0.005 0.03 0.25 217 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.4 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
25 / 80
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.4 34.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 36.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

0.43 4.00 4.67 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 854 854 0.03 0.01 — 857 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
26 / 80
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 546 546 0.02 0.02 2.16 554 Vendor 0.02 0.66 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 583 583 0.01 0.09 1.64 611 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.22 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 501 501 0.02 0.02 0.06 508 Vendor 0.02 0.69 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 583 583 0.01 0.09 0.04 610 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 0.33 183 Vendor 0.01 0.25 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 208 208 < 0.005 0.03 0.25 217 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.4 34.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 36.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
27 / 80
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 3.78 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.17 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.2 Paving 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Paving 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 162 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
28 / 80
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.40 4.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.40 3.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.56 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 3.78 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.17 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.2 Paving 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
29 / 80
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Paving 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 162 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.40 4.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.40 3.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.56 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
30 / 80
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

66.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.61 Architectu
ral
Coatings

3.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.60 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
31 / 80
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 102 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

66.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
32 / 80
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.61 Architectu
ral
Coatings

3.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.60 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 102 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
33 / 80
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 243 243 0.02 < 0.005 — 244
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1,325 1,325 0.08 0.01 — 1,331 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
34 / 80
Automobil——————————— 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005— 50.2
e
Care
Center
Parking
Lot
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 645
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 644
Total——————————— 2,903 2,903 0.18 0.02— 2,914
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————— 243 243 0.02 < 0.005— 244
Strip Mall——————————— 1,325 1,325 0.08 0.01— 1,331
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————— 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005— 50.2
Parking
Lot
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 645
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 644
Total——————————— 2,903 2,903 0.18 0.02— 2,914
Annual—————————————————
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
35 / 80
Convenie — — — — — — — — — — — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.4 nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 219 219 0.01 < 0.005 — 220 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.29 8.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.32
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 — 107
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 — 107
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 481 481 0.03 < 0.005 — 482

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 243 243 0.02 < 0.005 — 244
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1,325 1,325 0.08 0.01 — 1,331 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.2
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
36 / 80
Parking——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 645
Lot
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 644
Total——————————— 2,903 2,903 0.18 0.02— 2,914
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————— 243 243 0.02 < 0.005— 244
Strip Mall——————————— 1,325 1,325 0.08 0.01— 1,331
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————— 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005— 50.2
Parking
Lot
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 645
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 642 642 0.04 < 0.005— 644
Total——————————— 2,903 2,903 0.18 0.02— 2,914
Annual—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————— 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 40.4
Strip Mall——————————— 219 219 0.01 < 0.005— 220
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
37 / 80
Automobil — — — — — — — — — — — 8.29 8.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.32 e
Care
Center
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 — 107
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 — 107
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 481 481 0.03 < 0.005 — 482

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 Strip Mall 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 177 177 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 458 458 0.04 < 0.005 — 460 Total 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 713 713 0.06 < 0.005 — 715 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
38 / 80
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 Strip Mall 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 177 177 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 458 458 0.04 < 0.005 — 460 Total 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 713 713 0.06 < 0.005 — 715 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.63 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.64 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.18 8.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.20 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
39 / 80
Fast Food < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 75.9 75.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.1 Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Total 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 Strip Mall 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 177 177 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 458 458 0.04 < 0.005 — 460 Total 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 713 713 0.06 < 0.005 — 715 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
40 / 80
Convenie < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Strip Mall 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 177 177 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 458 458 0.04 < 0.005 — 460 Total 0.03 0.60 0.50 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 713 713 0.06 < 0.005 — 715 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.63 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.64 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 Automobil
e
Care
Center
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.18 8.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.20 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 75.9 75.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.1 Total 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
41 / 80

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

2.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.82 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Total 3.64 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

2.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
42 / 80
Architectu 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ral
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.10 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 Total 0.62 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

2.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.82 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Total 3.64 0.04 4.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

2.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
43 / 80
Total 2.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.10 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 Total 0.62 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.83 0.99 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.52
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 13.2 68.5 81.7 1.36 0.03 — 125 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 0.65 3.35 4.00 0.07 < 0.005 — 6.14
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
44 / 80
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—————————— 7.29 37.8 45.1 0.75 0.02— 69.2
Total—————————— 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05— 202
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 0.16 0.83 0.99 0.02 < 0.005— 1.52
Strip Mall—————————— 13.2 68.5 81.7 1.36 0.03— 125
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 0.65 3.35 4.00 0.07 < 0.005— 6.14
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—————————— 7.29 37.8 45.1 0.75 0.02— 69.2
Total—————————— 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05— 202
Annual—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 0.03 0.14 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.25
Strip Mall—————————— 2.19 11.3 13.5 0.23 0.01— 20.8
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 0.11 0.55 0.66 0.01 < 0.005— 1.02
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
45 / 80
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 1.21 6.25 7.46 0.12 < 0.005 — 11.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.53 18.3 21.8 0.36 0.01 — 33.5

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.83 0.99 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.52
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 13.2 68.5 81.7 1.36 0.03 — 125 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 0.65 3.35 4.00 0.07 < 0.005 — 6.14
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 7.29 37.8 45.1 0.75 0.02 — 69.2
Total — — — — — — — — — — 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05 — 202
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
46 / 80
Convenie
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 0.16 0.83 0.99 0.02 < 0.005— 1.52
Strip Mall—————————— 13.2 68.5 81.7 1.36 0.03— 125
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 0.65 3.35 4.00 0.07 < 0.005— 6.14
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—————————— 7.29 37.8 45.1 0.75 0.02— 69.2
Total—————————— 21.3 110 132 2.19 0.05— 202
Annual—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 0.03 0.14 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.25
Strip Mall—————————— 2.19 11.3 13.5 0.23 0.01— 20.8
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 0.11 0.55 0.66 0.01 < 0.005— 1.02
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—————————— 1.21 6.25 7.46 0.12 < 0.005— 11.5
Total—————————— 3.53 18.3 21.8 0.36 0.01— 33.5
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
47 / 80

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 1.83 0.00 1.83 0.18 0.00 — 6.39
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 52.7 0.00 52.7 5.27 0.00 — 185 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.39 0.00 7.39 0.74 0.00 — 25.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 77.9 0.00 77.9 7.78 0.00 — 272
Total — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 1.83 0.00 1.83 0.18 0.00 — 6.39
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 52.7 0.00 52.7 5.27 0.00 — 185 The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
48 / 80
Automobil
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.39 0.00 7.39 0.74 0.00 — 25.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 77.9 0.00 77.9 7.78 0.00 — 272
Total — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 8.73 0.00 8.73 0.87 0.00 — 30.5 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.12 0.00 — 4.28
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 12.9 0.00 12.9 1.29 0.00 — 45.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 23.1 0.00 23.1 2.31 0.00 — 81.0

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
49 / 80
Daily,—————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 1.83 0.00 1.83 0.18 0.00— 6.39
Strip Mall—————————— 52.7 0.00 52.7 5.27 0.00— 185
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 7.39 0.00 7.39 0.74 0.00— 25.9
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—————————— 77.9 0.00 77.9 7.78 0.00— 272
Total—————————— 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00— 489
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
—————————— 1.83 0.00 1.83 0.18 0.00— 6.39
Strip Mall—————————— 52.7 0.00 52.7 5.27 0.00— 185
Automobil e
Care
Center
—————————— 7.39 0.00 7.39 0.74 0.00— 25.9
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
50 / 80
Fast Food — — — — — — — — — — 77.9 0.00 77.9 7.78 0.00 — 272 Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Total — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.00 140 14.0 0.00 — 489
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 8.73 0.00 8.73 0.87 0.00 — 30.5 Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.12 0.00 — 4.28
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 12.9 0.00 12.9 1.29 0.00 — 45.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 23.1 0.00 23.1 2.31 0.00 — 81.0

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
51 / 80
Convenie——————————————— 1,078 1,078
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Strip Mall——————————————— 0.58 0.58
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————————— 744 744
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————————— 19.6 19.6
Total——————————————— 1,842 1,842
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————————— 1,078 1,078
Strip Mall——————————————— 0.58 0.58
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————————— 744 744
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————————— 19.6 19.6
Total——————————————— 1,842 1,842
Annual—————————————————
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
52 / 80
Convenie — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 178 178
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 123 123
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.25 3.25
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 305 305

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,078 1,078
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Automobil
e
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 744 744
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
53 / 80
Fast Food——————————————— 19.6 19.6
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Total——————————————— 1,842 1,842
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————————— 1,078 1,078
Strip Mall——————————————— 0.58 0.58
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————————— 744 744
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————————— 19.6 19.6
Total——————————————— 1,842 1,842
Annual—————————————————
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
——————————————— 178 178
Strip Mall——————————————— 0.10 0.10
Automobil e
Care
Center
——————————————— 123 123
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
54 / 80
Fast Food — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.25 3.25
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 305 305

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
55 / 80
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
56 / 80
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
57 / 80
Equipme
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
58 / 80
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
59 / 80
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
60 / 80
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
61 / 80
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/24/2024 5/7/2024 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 5/8/2024 5/27/2024 5.00 14.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/28/2024 11/25/2024 5.00 130 — The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
62 / 80
Paving Paving 11/26/2024 12/5/2024 5.00 8.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/6/2024 12/31/2024 5.00 18.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
63 / 80
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
64 / 80
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 21.4 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 37.9 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 18.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 7.58 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
65 / 80
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 21.4 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 37.9 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 18.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 7.58 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
66 / 80

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 171,785 57,262 30,187

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — 2,400 42.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.6

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 11.6 100%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
67 / 80
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 11,772 11,772 11,772 4,296,780 114,204 114,204 114,204 41,684,460

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 11,772 11,772 11,772 4,296,780 114,204 114,204 114,204 41,684,460

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 171,785 57,262 30,187

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
68 / 80
Summer Days day/yr 250

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
166,750 532 0.0330 0.0040 87,247
Strip Mall 909,434 532 0.0330 0.0040 551,917
Automobile Care Center 34,343 532 0.0330 0.0040 154,149 Parking Lot 440,731 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
440,376 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,430,412

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
166,750 532 0.0330 0.0040 87,247
Strip Mall 909,434 532 0.0330 0.0040 551,917
Automobile Care Center 34,343 532 0.0330 0.0040 154,149 Parking Lot 440,731 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
69 / 80
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
440,376 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,430,412

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 83,657 0.00
Strip Mall 6,903,189 0.00
Automobile Care Center 337,657 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 15.9
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 3,806,616 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 83,657 0.00
Strip Mall 6,903,189 0.00
Automobile Care Center 337,657 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 15.9
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 3,806,616 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 3.39 —
Strip Mall 97.9 —
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
70 / 80
Automobile Care Center 13.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 144 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 3.39 —
Strip Mall 97.9 —
Automobile Care Center 13.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 144 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Automobile Care Center Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
71 / 80
Automobile Care Center Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Automobile Care Center Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Automobile Care Center Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
72 / 80
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
73 / 80
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
74 / 80
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.49 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
75 / 80

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 95.3
AQ-PM 39.1
AQ-DPM 28.6
Drinking Water 5.94
Lead Risk Housing 31.7
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
76 / 80
Pesticides 78.9
Toxic Releases 19.7
Traffic 17.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 59.0
Groundwater 2.72
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 50.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 83.1
Cardio-vascular 98.3
Low Birth Weights 26.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 70.4
Housing 43.9
Linguistic 35.3
Poverty 69.8
Unemployment 94.5

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 32.86282561
Employed 8.700115488
Median HI 38.82971898
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
77 / 80
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 11.36917747
High school enrollment 18.20864879
Preschool enrollment 34.72346978
Transportation —
Auto Access 64.27563198
Active commuting 17.55421532
Social —
2-parent households 48.1714359
Voting 33.85089183
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 86.93699474
Park access 21.80161684
Retail density 10.57359168
Supermarket access 33.06813807
Tree canopy 2.515077634
Housing —
Homeownership 75.87578596
Housing habitability 87.02681894
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 78.49351983 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 77.50545361
Uncrowded housing 55.19055563
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 32.84999358
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 17.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
78 / 80
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 35.5
Cognitively Disabled 32.0
Physically Disabled 5.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 1.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 14.1
Elderly 45.2
English Speaking 51.5
Foreign-born 27.3
Outdoor Workers 15.6
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
79 / 80
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 81.2
Traffic Density 13.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 65.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 39.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 56.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 25.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
The Magnet Detailed Report, 11/30/2023
80 / 80
Screen Justification
Land Use Per site plan
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required. Adjusted for 8 month construction schedule.

Appendix B:

EMFAC2017 Output
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air DistrictRegion: South Coast AQMDCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Fuel Consumption Total Fuel Consumption VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle ClassSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.10442936 8265.097 1502.689 1.936286145 1936.286145 1913466.474 8265.097 13656273.03 7.14 HHDSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 109818.6753 13648008 1133618 1911.530188 1911530.188 13648008South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6635002.295 2.53E+08 31352477 7971.24403 7971244.03 8020635.698 2.53E+08 255180358.3 31.82 LDASouth Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 62492.97958 2469816 297086.6 49.3916685 49391.6685 2469816South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 150700.3971 6237106 751566 0 0 6237106South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 758467.6481 27812996 3504563 1023.913006 1023913.006 1024279.466 27812996 27821405.09 27.16 LDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 360.7799144 8408.618 1256.88 0.366459477 366.4594769 8408.618South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 7122.93373 303507.5 35798.19 0 0 303507.5South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2285150.139 85272416 10723315 3338.798312 3338798.312 3356536.438 85272416 85922778.34 25.60 LDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15594.68309 650362.8 76635.83 17.73812611 17738.12611 650362.8South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 28809.63735 917592.8 145405.4 0 0 917592.8South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 174910.3847 6216643 2605904 583.3851736 583385.1736 811563.1022 6216643 11211395.79 13.81 LHDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 125545.0822 4994753 1579199 228.1779285 228177.9285 4994753South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30102.75324 1034569 448486.2 111.5753864 111575.3864 209423.5025 1034569 2969599.008 14.18 LHDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 50003.13116 1935030 628976.5 97.84811618 97848.11618 1935030South Coast AQMD2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 305044.5141 2104624 610089 57.849018 57849.018 57849.018 2104624 2104623.657 36.38 MCYSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1589862.703 55684188 7354860 2693.883526 2693883.526 2744536.341 55684188 57109879.73 20.81 MDVSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36128.1019 1425691 176566.9 50.65281491 50652.81491 1425691South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16376.67653 537591.7 83475.95 0 0 537591.7South Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34679.50542 330042.9 3469.338 63.26295123 63262.95123 74893.26955 330042.9 454344.9436 6.07 MHSouth Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13122.69387 124302 1312.269 11.63031832 11630.31832 124302South Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25624.3151 1363694 512691.3 265.2060557 265206.0557 989975.6425 1363694 9484317.768 9.58 MHDTSouth Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122124.488 8120623 1221858 724.7695868 724769.5868 8120623South Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5955.291639 245774 119153.5 48.07750689 48077.50689 86265.88761 245774 579743.8353 6.72 OBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4286.940093 333969.8 41558.29 38.18838072 38188.38072 333969.8South Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2783.643068 112189.6 11134.57 12.19474692 12194.74692 39638.85935 112189.6 323043.5203 8.15 SBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6671.825716 210853.9 76991.94 27.44411242 27444.11242 210853.9South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 957.7686184 89782.63 3831.074 17.62416327 17624.16327 17863.66378 89782.63 91199.2533 5.11 UBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.00046095 1416.622 52.00184 0.239500509 239.5005093 1416.622South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16.11693886 1320.163 64.46776 0 1320.163 Appendix C:

SCAQMD Screening Tables for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities SCAQMD PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE “N”
Tables Effective for Applications Deemed Complete On or After October 1, 2017 (PROPOSED) Table 12.1A – Screening Tables for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Underground Storage Tank (UST) Residential
MICR per One Million Gallons of Gasoline
Downwind Distance (meters)
Station
Abbr. Location 25 50 75 100 200 300 500 1000
AZUS Azusa 2.884 1.040 0.550 0.340 0.093 0.045 0.018 0.006 BNAP Banning 4.208 1.703 0.940 0.603 0.186 0.093 0.039 0.013 CELA Central L.A. 2.484 0.876 0.455 0.287 0.085 0.041 0.017 0.005 ELSI Lake Elsinore 2.978 1.075 0.558 0.347 0.103 0.051 0.021 0.007 FONT Fontana 3.306 1.254 0.677 0.423 0.124 0.060 0.025 0.007 MSVJ Mission Viejo 2.721 0.981 0.515 0.319 0.094 0.047 0.018 0.006 PERI Perris 3.494 1.310 0.695 0.436 0.127 0.063 0.026 0.008 PICO Pico Rivera 2.629 0.956 0.509 0.316 0.091 0.044 0.018 0.005 RDLD Redlands 3.562 1.325 0.691 0.418 0.113 0.055 0.024 0.007 UPLA Upland 3.108 1.133 0.609 0.384 0.111 0.054 0.022 0.007 KBUR Burbank Airport 3.097 1.198 0.655 0.410 0.125 0.062 0.026 0.008 KCNO Chino Airport. 4.084 1.609 0.870 0.549 0.166 0.082 0.033 0.010 KCQT USC/Downtown L.A. 3.382 1.244 0.656 0.407 0.110 0.052 0.021 0.007 KFUL Fullerton Airport 2.726 1.027 0.553 0.348 0.104 0.052 0.021 0.007 KHHR Hawthorne Airport 3.225 1.197 0.640 0.405 0.123 0.061 0.025 0.007 KLAX Los Angeles Int'l Airport 4.456 1.830 1.010 0.648 0.204 0.102 0.044 0.013 KLGB Long Beach Airport 3.417 1.394 0.764 0.488 0.151 0.076 0.033 0.010 KONT Ontario Airport 4.834 2.006 1.111 0.710 0.222 0.112 0.047 0.015 KPSP Palm Springs Airport 3.363 1.352 0.736 0.467 0.144 0.073 0.031 0.010 KRAL Riverside Airport 4.141 1.678 0.922 0.588 0.177 0.088 0.038 0.013 KSMO Santa Monica Airport 3.444 1.336 0.731 0.462 0.139 0.068 0.028 0.008 KSNA John Wayne Int'l Airport 4.041 1.605 0.870 0.549 0.164 0.079 0.032 0.010 KTRM Desert Hot Springs Airport 3.820 1.553 0.848 0.540 0.163 0.082 0.035 0.010 KVNY Van Nuys Airport 2.909 1.132 0.608 0.378 0.111 0.055 0.022 0.007 SCAQMD 90 Draft Version 8.1
SCAQMD PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE “N”
Tables Effective for Applications Deemed Complete On or After October 1, 2017 (PROPOSED) Table 12.2A – Screening Tables for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Residential
MICR per One Million Gallons of Gasoline
Downwind Distance (meters)
Station
Abbr. Location 25 50 75 100 200 300 500 1000
AZUS Azusa 4.447 1.603 0.827 0.496 0.114 0.050 0.020 0.006 BNAP Banning 5.469 2.176 1.185 0.748 0.210 0.101 0.042 0.013 CELA Central L.A. 3.610 1.258 0.641 0.392 0.100 0.046 0.019 0.006 ELSI Lake Elsinore 4.056 1.458 0.748 0.452 0.119 0.057 0.024 0.008 FONT Fontana 4.812 1.787 0.940 0.569 0.145 0.067 0.027 0.008 MSVJ Mission Viejo 3.600 1.276 0.650 0.395 0.108 0.052 0.021 0.007 PERI Perris 4.639 1.733 0.904 0.558 0.144 0.069 0.029 0.009 PICO Pico Rivera 3.720 1.342 0.699 0.421 0.106 0.049 0.019 0.006 RDLD Redlands 5.809 2.218 1.154 0.685 0.132 0.062 0.026 0.008 UPLA Upland 4.693 1.677 0.871 0.532 0.130 0.060 0.025 0.008 KBUR Burbank Airport 3.940 1.493 0.808 0.493 0.139 0.069 0.028 0.008 KCNO Chino Airport. 4.971 1.950 1.047 0.658 0.188 0.091 0.037 0.011 KCQT USC/Downtown L.A. 5.393 1.959 1.002 0.604 0.133 0.058 0.024 0.007 KFUL Fullerton Airport 3.614 1.336 0.699 0.429 0.118 0.058 0.024 0.007 KHHR Hawthorne Airport 4.415 1.593 0.837 0.511 0.140 0.067 0.027 0.008 KLAX Los Angeles Int'l Airport 5.624 2.316 1.257 0.794 0.227 0.111 0.047 0.015 KLGB Long Beach Airport 4.450 1.829 0.993 0.621 0.172 0.083 0.035 0.011 KONT Ontario Airport 5.990 2.494 1.370 0.862 0.249 0.121 0.051 0.017 KPSP Palm Springs Airport 4.148 1.691 0.915 0.573 0.163 0.080 0.034 0.010 KRAL Riverside Airport 5.770 2.318 1.244 0.776 0.202 0.096 0.041 0.013 KSMO Santa Monica Airport 4.771 1.829 0.977 0.596 0.159 0.074 0.031 0.009 KSNA John Wayne Int'l Airport 5.072 2.017 1.085 0.674 0.186 0.088 0.036 0.010 KTRM Desert Hot Springs Airport 4.681 1.917 1.040 0.660 0.183 0.091 0.039 0.012 KVNY Van Nuys Airport 3.673 1.428 0.760 0.467 0.127 0.060 0.025 0.008 SCAQMD 92 Draft Version 8.1

HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
99 Cent Only Store Project
City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
San Jacinto USGS Topographic Quadrangle,
T4S, R1W, S27
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: APNs 434-080-025 & 026
Prepared for:

Rich Development, LLC
600 North Tustin Ave # 150
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Prepared by:

Phoenix Biological Consulting
313 Nicole Dr
Vista CA 92084
Contact: Ryan Young, President
(949) 887-0859
[email protected]
Survey Conducted By: Ryan Young
Surveys Conducted: May-June 2022
Report Date: August 17, 2022

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Table of Contents
Section 1: Summary .....................................................................................................................................4 Section 2: Introduction ................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................4

2.2 Project Description.............................................................................................................................4 Section 3: Methods......................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis...................................................................5

3.2 Literature Review...............................................................................................................................5

3.3 Plant Communities.............................................................................................................................5

3.4 Riparian and Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas.....................................................................5

3.5 Field Investigation..............................................................................................................................6

3.6 Plants..................................................................................................................................................6

3.7 Wildlife...............................................................................................................................................6 Section 4: Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................7

4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................7

4.2 Soils....................................................................................................................................................7

4.3 Plant Communities.............................................................................................................................7

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters..........................................................................................................................7

4.5 Nesting Birds......................................................................................................................................8

4.6 MSHCP................................................................................................................................................8 Section 5 – Project Impacts..........................................................................................................................8

5.1 Impacts per Plant Community ...........................................................................................................8

5.2 Nesting Birds......................................................................................................................................8

5.3 Burrowing Owls..................................................................................................................................8 Section 6: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis............................................................9

6.1 MSHCP Requirements........................................................................................................................9

6.1.1 - Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines....................................................................................9

6.1.2 - Sensitive Plant Species..............................................................................................................9

6.2 Jurisdictional Waters..........................................................................................................................9

6.2.1 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat ........................................................................................................9

6.2.2 - Riparian/Riverine Species........................................................................................................9

6.2.3 - Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp Habitat...........................................................................................9

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 7 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................10

7.1 Nesting Birds & Burrowing Owls......................................................................................................10 Section 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................11 Section 9 Certification................................................................................................................................12 Section 10 References................................................................................................................................21 Exhibit A: Regional View ............................................................................................................................13 Exhibit B: Aerial View.................................................................................................................................14 Exhibit C: Topographic View ......................................................................................................................15 Exhibit D: Soils Map ...................................................................................................................................16 Exhibit E: CNDDB Results...........................................................................................................................17 Exhibit F: Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas.........................................................................18 Exhibit G: Riverside MSHCP Vegetation Layers..........................................................................................19 Exhibit H: Proximity to Criteria Cells..........................................................................................................20 Appendix A: Floral & Fauna Compendia......................................................................................................23 Appendix B: Site Photographs....................................................................................................................25 Appendix C: RegulatoryBackground..........................................................................................................27

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 1: Summary
This report contains the results of a Habitat Assessment (HA), burrowing owl survey and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis conducted by Phoenix Biological Consulting on a 14 acre project site located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The purpose of this Habitat Assessment is to identify potential impacts to biological recourses associated with the construct a 99 Cent Only Store. The project site contains non-native ruderal vegetation and non-native trees along the perimeter. There are no anticipated impacts to sensitive species.

Section 2: Introduction
At the request of the Rich Development, LLC, Phoenix conducted a habitat assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the 99 Cent Only Store Project located at the southeast corner of Ramona Expressway and State Street in the City of San Jacinto, California, hereafter referred to as project site or site.

2.1 Project Location
The project site is generally located in the northern portion of San Jacinto, along Ramona Expressway which borders the northern boundary of the site. Mt San Jacinto College is located just to the north of the site. State Street borders the western boundary of the site. There are existing residential tracts to the east and a small open disturbed lot to the south of approximately 8.5 acres (Exhibit 1). The north and west sides are bound by existing paved roads; Romana and State Street. The site is located within Section 27; Township 4 South, Range 1 West, USGS San Jacinto 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.

2.2 Project Description
The project consists of a neighborhood oriented retail shopping center on approximately 14.5 acres of commercially zoned land in the city of San Jacinto. The area consists of approximately 120,000 square feet of retail, office, banking, service and restaurant tenants typically found in similar shopping centers in Riverside County.

Section 3: Methods
Prior to conducting a field site visit, the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSHCP) was queried to determine a general desktop analysis habitat assessment and potential survey requirements for the project site.

The MSHCP query results indicate that burrowing owl surveys are the only biological survey requirements for the project site. There are no criteria cells in close proximity nor are there any This number should be
updated to be consistent
with new site plan.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis defined waterways.

3.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis

Geographic Information System (GIS) software was utilized to map the project site in relation to the MSHCP areas including Criteria Cells, Core Habitat, Linkages, and areas proposed for conservation. RCA MSHCP online mapping program was queried to determine habitat assessment and potential survey requirements for the project site. According to the MSHCP, the project area lies within the burrowing owl survey requirement area. There are no other potential sensitive species or sensitive habitat identified in the online RCA MSHCP database query.

3.2 Literature Review
Prior to the field visit, a literature review was conducted of the environmental setting of the project site. Literature reviewed includes the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2022) Soil Survey for the project site, and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2022). The closest recorded location of sensitive species was determined through a seven-mile radius query of the CNDDB (2022).

The CNDDB ArcGIS database was utilized, together with ArcGIS software, to locate the previously recorded locations of sensitive plant and wildlife occurrences and determine the distance from the project site (Exhibit E). Additionally, the Riverside County MSHCP was reviewed for additional information on known occurrences of the species within Riverside County.

3.3 Plant Communities
The plant communities were mapped using aerial photography and ground truthed by pedestrian surveys of the sites. The plant communities within the project site were classified according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFWs) List of Terrestrial Natural Communities (2003) and also cross-referenced to descriptions provided in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (1986). When the conditions did not fit the descriptions provided by CDFW or Holland, Phoenix’s biologist classified the habitat.

3.4 Riparian and Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas Phoenix staff reviewed aerial photography, queried the United States Fish and Wildlife Wetland Inventory Mapper (USFWS, 2022) and the RCA MSHCP database prior to conducting general surveys.

The information was used to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features and water bodies that may be considered riparian/riverine habitat or under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potentially riparian/riverine habitat and may be subject to State and federal regulatory authority as

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis “waters” of the U.S.

Based on the MSHCP, riparian/riverine habitat is defined as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.

3.5 Field Investigation
Phoenix biologist, Ryan Young, conducted the survey of the project site on May 17, 2022 from 9:00 a.m. to 14:00 p.m. and June 27, 2022 from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The weather conditions during the surveys included mostly sunny skies with an average temperature of 89° F and 94° F (degrees Fahrenheit) for the two days. The biologist systematically walked the entire site and covered 100% of the project area using belt transects that were uploaded onto a hand-held Garmin GPS device. The entire project site was assessed to determine the extent of plant communities and to evaluate the presence of jurisdictional features, and riparian/riverine habitat. The burrowing owl surveys included walking parallel 20 meter transects throughout the site while looking for any potential burrows that would serve as refuge for burrowing owls. Additionally, the biologist looked for the presence of owl feathers, white wash and owl pellets. Buffer surveys were only conducted on the southern boundary where suitable habitat was present. Other considerations included documenting soil conditions, presence of indicator species, slope, aspect and hydrology.

3.6 Plants
During the field survey, plant species were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were identified off-site using taxonomical guides. A soils map was used to identify areas of the site, which contain suitable soils to support sensitive plant species. A list of all species observed on the project site was compiled from the survey data (Appendix B). Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2008). In this report, scientific names are noted immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only).

3.7 Wildlife
Wildlife species observed during field surveys were identified by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs and recorded in a field notebook. When necessary, field guides were used to assist with identification of species during surveys and included the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (2003) for birds, and Burt and Grossenheider (1980) for mammals. Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized, scientific names are used in this report and are provided in Appendix B for reference.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 4: Existing Conditions

4.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is relatively flat with elevation at 1,519 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project does not a have any noticeable slope. The project area is highly disturbed dirt lot that is dominated by weeds and non-native herbs. There are no trees present on the site.

4.2 Soils
Exhibit D depicts soils that are mapped within the project site. USDA online soils data mapper was utilized to download shapefiles of the pertinent soil layers related to project boundary (USDA, 2022).

The soils of the project site are comprised of Arlington fine sandy loam and Hanford fine sandy loam.

Each of the sandy loam series are well drained, and have slow to medium drainage. These soils are developed in alluvium consisting mainly of granitic materials. The project site has been highly modified in the past by commercial and residential development. None of these soils are listed as sensitive in the MSHCP or provide suitable habitat for any sensitive plant species.

4.3 Plant Communities
The proposed project potentially affects one distinct vegetation communities or land features described below (Exhibit G). There were no native plant species observed within the project site. A full floral compendium is included in Appendix A.

Ruderal
Areas mapped as ruderal or non-native grassland, per the MSHCP GIS layers, are characterized as disturbed areas that are dominated by non-native plant species adapted to disturbance. The common species observed in the ruderal community include leporinum barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), tumbleweed (Salsola sp), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), red-stemmed stork's bill (Erodium cicutarium), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha).

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California also regulates waters of the State and streambeds under the Regional Board and CDFW jurisdiction. These waters include wetlands and non- wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. The project site does not contain features that are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act or State regulation for isolated waters or streambeds.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis

4.5 Nesting Birds
The project site contains suitable ground nesting habitat for avian species. The MSHCP does not cover impacts to nesting birds, however, they are protected under section 3503 of CDFW code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Several common bird species were observed within the project area during the survey. No inactive or active nests were observed. All bird species observed are included in the faunal compendium in Appendix A.

4.6 MSHCP
The project site is within APN 434-080-025 & -026 within the Cities of San Jacinto. The project site is not within a Cell or any designated survey areas for sensitive species other than the burrowing owl.

The project site does not contain any riverine/riparian habitat, vernal pools or Urban/Wildlands interface areas.

Section 5 – Project Impacts

5.1 Impacts per Plant Community
The flowing table provides the quantities for each habitat type within the project area:

Table 1: Impacts per Habitat Type
Habitat Type Acres
Ruderal 14.44

5.2 Nesting Birds
There is a potential for nesting birds to utilize the non-native shrubs and ground nesting within the project site. There are no trees present on site. Potential impacts to nesting birds can be eliminated if vegetation suitable for nesting activity is removed outside of the nesting bird season. The nesting bird season is typically February to the end of August.

5.3 Burrowing Owls
Burrowing owl surveys were negative for the project area and surrounding buffer. There are several California ground squirrel (CGS) burrows present on site but none of the CGS burrows had any sign of burrowing owls such as feathers, tracks, whitewash, pellets or owls. The majority of the CGS burrows were active with CGS and fresh tracks of CGS. Numerous CGS were spotted perched near burrows

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis mounds or running across the project area during the pedestrian surveys.

Section 6: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis

6.1 MSHCP Requirements
The proposed project site is located in City of San Jacinto and is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell (Exhibit H). The MSHCP also establishes habitat assessment requirements for certain species of plants, birds, mammals, and amphibians. Since the project is not within a mammal, amphibian survey area or riparian/riverine area, no additional analysis is required beyond the burrowing owl survey requirement for this project.

6.1.1 - Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
According to the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area (MSHCP, p 6-42). The project site is not within the vicinity of a conservation area (Exhibit H) and the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not applicable.

6.1.2 - Sensitive Plant Species
The project site is not within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) or Criteria Area Species (CAS) Survey Areas. There were no rare plants found within the project area and there is no suitable habitat for rare plants.

6.2 Jurisdictional Waters
There are no jurisdictional drainages within the project area.

6.2.1 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat
There is no riparian/riverine habitat found within the project site.

6.2.2 - Riparian/Riverine Species
None of the riparian/riverine species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within the project site.

6.2.3 - Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp Habitat
No depressions or areas where water would pool were observed within the project site. No vernal pools occur on the project site and there is no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp to occur.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 7 Recommendations

7.1 Nesting Birds & Burrowing Owls
Due to the presence of numerous CGS burrows on site, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl is recommended prior to ground disturbance to ensure no burrowing owls have moved onto the site since the burrowing owl survey was completed.

Ground disturbing and vegetation removal activities should be conducted outside of the nesting bird season. If these activities must occur during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey should be conducted within 7 days prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if any nesting birds occur within the project site. If nesting birds are not found within the project site, no further actions are required. If nesting birds are observed on site, no impacts shall occur within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of any active nests. Construction activity may only occur within 250 feet of an active nest at the discretion of a biological monitor.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 8 Conclusions
No sensitive species of habitats were observed within the project site. The project site does not contain any riverine/riparian habitat, vernal pools or Urban/Wildlands interface areas. There are no sensitive plant or animal species present. The following recommended actions will ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP.
1) Preconstruction nesting bird survey if vegetation removal is conducted between February and August.
2) Burrowing owl preconstruction survey, thirty days prior to any ground disturbance.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 9 Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: August 17, 2022 Signed:

Ryan Young

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit A: Regional View
,, .. -...
lnl111•
Legend
~ ~• - LL~ 99 Cent Only Store Project Area
CJ MSHCP Boundary
• 11,,,.1, ......
,,, l(I\NSi'lJ.t'
Source: ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC, June, 2022
0 ,. l.-•.ll'j r,llol'1'-'" J-N
,. ,,
Regional View for APN 434-080-025 & 026
5 10 20 30
- - Miles - -
M1••h .,.
. ........... --~·--.
·-·

1. Garm,n iJ-Sttsl., ,,,,.,.,

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit B: Aerial View
Parcel Boundaries (434-080-025 & 026)
Legend
F ____ j 99 Cent Only Store Project Area
0 145 290 580
Source: ESRI ArcGIS. Rich Development. LLC , June, 2022 870
Feet

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit C: Topographic View
0 Parcel Boundaries {434-080-025 & 026)
Legend
_J 99 Cent Only Store Project Area
1,600 3, 200 4,800
Feet
Source: ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC. June, 2022

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit D: Soils Map
Legend USDA Soils Data Search Results for APN 434-080-025 & 026 USDA Soils D a ta - DnB • Delo loamy sond gravelly suostratum. 0-5% !!lopes - GoB • Grangeville loamy frne S8nd, drained, 0-5% llopes ~---· ·y 99 Cent Only St0<e F'rojectArea So II Types - DrA . Delio loamy fine sand, gra""'y svbsuatum, 0-2% .iopes - GwA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, loamy subslretum, drained, 0-2% 5lopes - DgB. Delio loamy sand, 0-5% slopes 0 115 2:JO 460 690 Source: ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC, June, 2022 Feet

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit E: CNDDB Results
Southern Riparian Sct'ub
San Diego black-llllled Jackrabbit Couft8f'• 901dfNlld• smooth tarplant
smooth tarplant smooth tarplant
CoultM"s goldfi@ldSsmooth tarplant
sm:>oth tarplant
San Diego d85ert woodrat
Los-Ang n pockat l110IIH
Stephens· kangaroo rat
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
coast horned liUrdLos Angeles poc et mouse
South•n Cottonwood WHtow Riparian Fornt
smooth tarplant
.,._
11)1,n
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Fores
orangethroat wtliptailsmooth tarplant
orangethroat whiptail
burrowing owl
ell's sage sparrow
smooth tarplant
Coultefs goldflelds
Coulte~s goldfields
burro'Mng o\M burro'Ning 0 v111Coult s goldfields
loggerhead SIUlll,tt Couller's goldflelds
trlcoknd~ /
' smooth tarplant
smooth 111\fllant • ~ooth lllrplanl _ .

Sall Sprtng checkerbloofflsmooth tarplant
s.-tarplant
smooth tarplant
smooth buplant
smooth tarplant
I smooth tarplant
f
i
!
western yellow-bi lied cuckoo
, orangethroat whlptall
Amal:icllff' badgerchaparratoaand-verbena
re<1-::'1::n~::V,!~lle burrow! owl .. 1, chaparral sand~ erben~ p
burrowing .owl 6 ~obc~, ~~00~,3
, an Bernardino kangaroo rat \
rn:' San Be ardlno kangaroo 'rat \
Jaeger's milk: : : :
uiseilo
Bond i
uv<>ovo
........,, coast h nted lizard Mojave tarplan
orangethroa:t wh lptall •J~ Opens treett.lap (sn d) .cootflbutt':fs_ c c-r.r,-s.-..

Legend CNDDB Search Results for APN 434-080-025 & 026
D 99Cent 0nll'StorePro;ectArea - Jaeger'smilk-vech - Southern Coas~ Live Oak Riparian Forest - coast horned lizard - smooth tarplant Common Name - Los Angeles pooket mouse - Southern Cottonv,•ood W'illow Riparian Forest - ferruginous hawk - southern Californ ia rufous-crowned sparrov.· - American badger - Mojave rarplant - Southorn Mixed Riparian Forest - least Bell's vireo - southern gr.ass.hop~er mouse - Bell's sage spa rrow - Salt Spring checko.rbloom - Southern Riparian Scrub - loggcrtioad shrike - tricolored blackbird - Califorma sabnta 1I - San Bernardino lrangamo rat - St2-phens' kangaroo rat - north1,1,-estern San Di-ego pooket mouse - wtistern yellO\N bat - Cou te,•s galdfietct;. - San Die-go black-tailed Jclckratort - burrowing owl - or<:1ngetrroc1twhipta1I - western yeltow-bi1fed cuckoo - Ootch bumble bee - San Dio~o desert 1,110odrat - chaparral &and-\/Orbena - Desert Fan Palm Oases Woodland

3.350 6,700
Source: ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC, June, 2022
- red•d1amond rattlesnake
13,400
- wtiite-faced ibis
20,100
Feet

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit F: Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas

Legend Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas
' 99 Cent Only Store Project Area ---- v /1 Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Areas 0 145 290 580
Source: ESRI ArcGIS. Rich Development. LLC. June. 2022
870
Foot

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit G: Riverside MSHCP Vegetation Layers
Legend Riverside MSHCP Vege~~~i~~-Types I
Riverside MS HCP Vegetation Layers : ~ 99 cent Only store Project Are - Non-native Grassland
- Residential/Urban/Exotic 0 120 240 480 720
Source: ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC, J une, 2022 Feet

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Exhibit H: Proximity to Criteria Cells
I
i
,_.,,,.
-=-r~·--
I
_J
f .... - ......
' -.go ..
i
I
!
j .,,..
,.
[
..1 ... """'
r-···
i
..
'· ' I
J
, l (
... '
,.._ •
J ..... __
' '-
(
i--
1 I
·( __ _
t-··- ·-·- I
l ~~ -·- I ·--- I Opi!,nSlrl!oelMilp (end) ea,lnbutOI'$, CC.-BY· Legend Project Proximity to Riverside MSHCP Criteria Cells .~~-] 99 Cent Only Store Project Area
~-~I Riverside MSHCP Criteria Cells
0 1,000 2,000 4.()00
Source; ESRI ArcGIS, Rich Development, LLC, June, 2022
6,000
Foot

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Section 10 References
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. A field guide to mammals of North America to Mexico:

Third Edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base.

Sacramento, California.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). June, 2022. Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Department of Fish and Widlife.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

Non-game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sacramento, California.

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. The Burrowing Owl: A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Accessed on the internet March 21, 2006:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Riverside County, CA. 2022 (June). https://www.wrc-rca.org/habitat-conservation
Riverside County Environmental Programs Department. March 29, 2006a. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Accessed on the internet at:
https://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/epd/documents/Burrowing_Owl_Survey_Instructions. pdf
Riverside County Environmental Programs Department. August 17, 2006b. Western Riverside MSHCP 30-day Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey Report Format. Accessed on the internet at:
https://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/epd/documents/Burrowing_Owl_30_day_Survey_Requi rements.pdf
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.

Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley Filed Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA. 471 p.

Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Special Publication, No. 1, 5th ed.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022.

Phoenix Biological Consulting August 17, 2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Soil Survey: Riverside County, California. Department of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix A: Floral & Fauna Compendia
Flora Compendia
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Chamomilla
Conyza
Lactuca
Sonchus
Sonchus
Taraxacum
suaveolens
canadensis
serriola asper
oleraceus
officinale
pineapple weed
horseweed prickly
lettuce sow thistle
common sow thistle
common dandelion
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Fabaceae Legume Family
Medicago polymorpha California bur clover
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed stork's bill
Malvaceae Mallow Family
Malva parviflora cheeseweed
Oxalidaceae Oxalis Family
Oxalis radicosa dwarf wood-sorrel
Plantaginaceae Plantain Family
Plantago lanceolata English plantain
Poaceae Grass Family
Bromus
Cynodon
Festuca
Hordeum
Poa
catharticus
dactylon
brevipila
murinum ssp. leporinum
annua
rescue grass
Bermuda grass hard
fescue leporinum
barley annual
bluegrass

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Fauna Compendia
Phrynosomatidae Lizards
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard
Falconidae Falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
Mimidae Mockingbirds/Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Fringillidae Finches
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Passeridae True sparrows
Passer domesticus house sparrow
Sciuridae Squirrels
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket Gophers
Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix B: Site Photographs
Northeast Corner.

Facing SW
Southeast Corner.

Facing NW.

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Southwest Corner.

Facing NE.

Northwest Corner.

Facing SE.

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C: RegulatoryBackground

REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories of protection at both federal and State levels, depending on the magnitude of the threat to continued existence and existing knowledge of population levels.

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that provides a process for listing species as either threatened or endangered, and the methods of protecting listed species. The FESA defines as “endangered” any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is a species that is likely to become endangered in the near future. A “proposed” species is one that has been officially proposed by USFWS for addition to the federal threatened and endangered species list.

Section 9 of the FESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the FESA, the USFWS may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The CDFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.

State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.

SECTION 3503 AND 3511 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE

Phoenix Biological Consulting June 29,2022
99 Cent Store Only Biological Habitat Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis The CDFG administers the California Fish and Game Code. There are particular sections of the Code that are applicable to natural resource management. For example, section 3503 of the Code states it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3511 of the Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFG is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are fully protected by the State include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The goal of the MSHCP is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region.

The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the wildlife agencies allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for all species covered by the MSHCP, including State- and federal-listed species as well as other identified sensitive species and/or their habitats. Each city or local jurisdiction will impose a Development Mitigation Fee for projects within their jurisdiction. With payment of the mitigation fee to the County and compliance with the survey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and FESA will be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and project description.

The fee for residential development ranges from approximately $800 per unit to $1,600 per unit depending on development density (County Ordinance 810.2). Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the USFWS, the CDFG, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.

December 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC PROJECT

CITY OF SAN JACINTO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LSA
December 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC PROJECT

CITY OF SAN JACINTO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

IMG
Real Estate Development Services
18952 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 210
Irvine, California 92612
Prepared by:

Riordan Goodwin, RA
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
LSA Project No. 20231262
National Archaeological Database Information (NADB):

Type of Study: Phase I Pedestrian Survey
Sites Recorded: 33-024106 (update)
USGS 7.5′ Quadrangle: San Jacinto, California
Acreage: 14.48 acres
Key Words: San Jacinto, Phase I Survey, positive results, historic-period resource LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
IMG LLC retained LSA to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the proposed construction of the Rich Development LLC Project (project) in San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. This cultural resources assessment was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A cultural resources records search, additional research, and a field survey were conducted for the project area. Although a resource was previously documented within the project area, it is a marginal historic-period site (remnant foundations and refuse) that was previously evaluated as not a “historical resource” under CEQA, and the current study results do not change that determination.

Therefore, due to the nature of the cultural resource within the project area (not significant) and the lack of prehistoric resources within 1 mile, there is little to no potential for significant impacts to cultural resources and no further investigations or archaeological monitoring are recommended.

In the event previously undocumented archaeological resources are identified during earthmoving activities, further work in the area should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the nature of the find(s) and has determined appropriate treatment.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 NATURAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 3 Climate, Watershed and Biology................................................................................................... 3 Geology ................................................................................................................................ 3 CULTURAL SETTING..................................................................................................... 4 Prehistory ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Ethnohistory.................................................................................................................................. 4 Cahuilla................................................................................................................................. 4 History ........................................................................................................................................... 5 San Jacinto............................................................................................................................ 5 METHODS................................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.............................................................................................................................. 7 Additional Research ...................................................................................................................... 7 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.............................................................................................................................. 8 Additional Research ...................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 8 33-024106 (Por�on of Woodhead/Quandt Ranch).............................................................. 8 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 9 Standard Conditions...................................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location................................................................................................. 2

APPENDICES
A: RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
B: DPR SITE RECORD UPDATE
LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 1

INTRODUCTION
IMG LLC retained LSA to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the proposed construction of the Rich Development LLC Project (project) in San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The assessment included a records search, additional research, and a field survey of the project area.

This assessment report documents the potential for cultural resources to be present within the project area and whether those resources will be affected by construction of the project. This assessment addresses the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; as amended January 1, 2016); Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 13 (Environmental Quality), Chapter 2.6 Section 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) and Section 21084.1 (Historical Resources); and the Guidelines for CEQA (as amended December 1, 2015), California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5 Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources).

The project area is on the southeast corner of West Ramona Expressway and North State Street. It is bounded by commercial and residential development to the north, vacant land and residential development to the south, commercial and residential development to the east, and commercial development to the west. The project area is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Jacinto, California 7.5-minute topographic map in an unsectioned area of Township 4 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (USGS 1979) (Figure 1). The project area encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 434-080-025-2 and 434-080-026-3. The project proposes to construct a commercial building and associated parking.

LSA
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - San Jacinto (1979), CA
J:\20231262\GIS\Pro\Rich Development Project\Rich Development Project.aprx (11/14/2023) FIGURE 1
Rich Development Project

R I V E R S I D E

C O U N T Y
Ã74
Ã79
Ã60
Ã243
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Project Location
::;=======
.

I
11 u
·=
===•=-=--.,'/
-
/·•:. • b==c:=, 4 ,
•
• I
•
• II
" •
~

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 3

NATURAL SETTING

CLIMATE, WATERSHED AND BIOLOGY
At an average elevation of 1,520 feet, the project is within the Sonoran Life Zone of California (Schoenherr 1992), which ranges from below sea level to an elevation of approximately 3,500 feet.

The project region is characterized by a semi-arid climate, with dry, hot summers and moderate winters. Rainfall averages 5–15 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). The project area is approximately 0.93 mile southwest of the San Jacinto River. Although the native vegetation of the project area has been largely removed, common wild plants observed included mustard, puncture vine, Russian thistle, and hare oat. Common animals include deer, coyotes, foxes, rabbits, rodents, ravens, raptors, reptiles, and insects.

Geology
The project area is at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900- mile-long northwest-southeast trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges to the tip of Baja California and includes the Los Angeles Basin (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb, 1976). The total width of this province is approximately 225 miles, extending from the Colorado Desert in the east, across the continental shelf to the Southern Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente) in the west (Sharp 1976). This province is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas fault (California Geological Survey 2002). It contains extensive pre-Cretaceous (older than 145 million years ago [Ma]) igneous and metamorphic rocks covered by limited exposures of post-Cretaceous (younger than 66 Ma) sedimentary deposits (Norris and Webb 1976). Within this province, the project is on the Perris Block, a fault-bounded structural block that extends from the southern foot of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains southeast to the vicinity of Bachelor Mountain and Polly Butte (Morton and Miller 2006; Kenney 1999). It is bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto fault and on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone (Morton and Miller 2006).

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 4

CULTURAL SETTING

PREHISTORY
Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Southern California area have been attempted numerous times, and several are reviewed in Moratto (2004). No single description is universally accepted as the various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that are variously interpreted.

Currently, two primary regional culture chronology syntheses are commonly referenced in the archaeological literature. The first, Wallace (1955), describes four cultural horizons or time periods:

Horizon I – Early Man (9000–6000 BC), Horizon II – Milling Stone Assemblages (6000–3000 BC), Horizon III – Intermediate Cultures (3000 BC–AD 500), and Horizon IV – Late Prehistoric Cultures (AD 500–historic contact). This chronology was refined (Wallace 1978) using absolute chronological dates obtained after 1955.

The second cultural chronology (Warren 1968) is based broadly on Southern California prehistoric cultures and was also revised (Warren 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Warren’s (1984:340–430) chronology includes five periods in prehistory: Lake Mojave (7000–5000 BC), Pinto (5000–2000 BC), Gypsum (2000 BC–AD 500), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1200), and Protohistoric (AD 1200–historic contact). Changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, which begins with gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, continues with the desiccation of the desert lakes, followed by a brief return to pluvial conditions, and concludes with a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to the present (Warren 1986).

ETHNOHISTORY
The project is within the traditional territorial boundary of the Cahuilla (Kroeber 1925; Bean 1978).

Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. The first written accounts of these Southern California tribes are attributed to Spanish explorers and mission fathers, and later documentation was by others indicated below.

Cahuilla
The territory of the Cahuilla ranged from the San Bernardino Mountains south to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains, from Orocopia Mountain to the east, to the San Jacinto Plain and Palomar Mountain to the west (Kroeber 1908). Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and encompassed diverse environments ranging from inland river valleys and foothills to mountains and desert (Bean 1978).

Cahuilla villages, generally located near water sources within canyons or near alluvial fans, comprised groups of related individuals, generally from a single lineage, and the territory around the village was owned by the villagers (Bean 1978). Like other Native American groups in Southern LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 5 California, the Cahuilla were semi-nomadic peoples leaving their villages and using temporary campsites to exploit seasonably available plant and animal resources (James 1960).

Cahuilla subsistence was based primarily on acorns, honey mesquite, screw beans, piñon nuts, and cactus fruit, supplemented by a variety of wild fruits and berries, tubers, roots, and greens (Kroeber 1925; Heizer and Elsasser 1980). Hunting deer, rabbit, antelope, bighorn sheep, reptiles, small rodents, quail, doves, ducks, and reptiles by means of bows, throwing sticks, traps, and communal drives is documented (James 1960).

The Cahuilla were documented by Barrows (1900), Kroeber (1908), Hooper (1920), and Strong (1929), among others.

HISTORY
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1821), the Mexican Period (1821–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). Since the cultural resource documented within the project area dates to the latter half of the 20th century (see below), the Spanish and Mexican periods are not particularly relevant and therefore are not discussed further. Instead, this historical summary focuses on the city of San Jacinto and the resource itself (Woodhead/Quandt Ranch).

San Jacinto
The community was established in the 1850s on a portion of the San Jacinto Nuevy y Potrero Rancho (granted to José Antonio Estudillo in 1846). By 1870, it was well established with a post office, a store, and 23 residences. In 1883, the community was moved north to its present location by the San Jacinto Land Association, which purchased land from the Estudillo family and laid out a new town site (Gunther 1984). In 1886, the population numbered in excess of 1,500. The San Jacinto Valley Railway branch line from Perris was completed in 1888, and San Jacinto was incorporated as a city the same year. When Riverside County was formed, the community was designated 1 of the 12 original judicial townships (Gunther 1984). By the beginning of World War I, San Jacinto had a diversified economic base that included not only expansive cattle/dairy ranching but also apiaries and extensive cultivation of fruit, vegetables, grain, alfalfa, and grain crops over thousands of acres (McGroarty 1914). Agriculture sustained growth in the 20th century, which was enhanced by tourists visiting the local hot springs (Bernasconi, Eden, and Gilman Hot Springs).

Woodhead/Quandt Ranch (33-024106, see below)
In 1873, Charles B. Woodhead and others of the American Livestock Company acquired 1,000 acres roughly bounded by the San Jacinto River to the north, Idyllwild Drive to the south, San Jacinto Avenue to the east, and State Street to the west (including the entire project area on the southeast corner of West Ramona Expressway and North State Street) (Peterson 2014). The Woodhead family initially established a carriage horse ranch on the land and subsequently ran a dairy from the 1910s into the 1930s (HSJGS 1989). By the mid-1940s, periodic floods and a depleted water table had made the dairy operation unprofitable, and Mrs. Ida G. Woodhead sold the ranch to Carl H. Quandt, who had leased the ranch from the Woodheads since the late 1930s (HSJGS 1989). Quandt diversified the ranch with cattle and a variety of crops, persevering into the early 1960s (HSJGS LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 6 1989). The ranch ultimately gave way to other land uses, including a sand and gravel pit on the San Jacinto River (Quandt Materials), a college campus (Mt. San Jacinto Community College), a trailer park, and a strip mall.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 7

METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH
On November 21, 2023, a cultural resources records search was completed for the project area and a mile radius around it at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at the University of California, Riverside. The objectives of this research were (1) to establish the status and extent of previously recorded cultural resources sites, surveys, and studies; (2) to note the likelihood of encountering cultural resources and their type(s) based on previously recorded resources within 1 mile of the project area; and (3) to uncover relevant historical contexts. Data sources consulted at the EIC include archaeological site records and reports from previous studies.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
In November 2023, Archaeologist/Senior Cultural Resources Manager Riordan Goodwin reviewed previous research conducted for the 2014 Ramona Expressway Widening Phase II project and the resource record of the remnant features/deposit of the Woodhead/Quandt Ranch (33-024106) previously recorded by LSA in 2014, as well as online aerial photographs.

FIELD SURVEY
On November 17, 2023, LSA Archaeologist Christopher Morgan conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area. The entire project area was surveyed in systematic parallel transects spaced by approximately 10 meters (approximately 33 feet). The purpose of this survey was to identify and document any cultural resources that might be exposed and locate areas within the project area that might be sensitive for cultural resources prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 8

RESULTS

RECORDS SEARCH
Data from the EIC indicated 35 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius, three of which included the entirety of the project area (Shephard 2007; Goodwin 2015; Stever and Duke 2017). One resource was documented within the project parcels (see below), and another 35 built environment properties were recorded within 1 mile, including mostly residences with several churches and commercial buildings (see the Record Search Results in Appendix A). No prehistoric resources were documented within 1 mile.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
Review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs indicated the historic-period buildings, associated features, and landscaping dating to the 1940s or later were removed from the project parcels sometime between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s (Historic Aerials var.; USGS 1952, 1955).

FIELD SURVEY
Visibility was good (approximately 85 percent) with little obstruction by vegetation. The project site has been moderately to severely disturbed by agricultural and vegetation abatement activities. Soils are silty alluvium. The following is a summary of the resource previously documented within the project area.
33-024106 (Portion of Woodhead/Quandt Ranch)
This resource was initially noted in the late 2000s but not documented (Shephard 2007). LSA formally documented a portion of this resource (two remnant slabs and temporally ambiguous refuse) in the mid-2010s (Goodwin 2014).The survey for the current project (99 Cents Only Store) noted the condition was generally consistent with that of the previous site description and indicated so on the site record, with four additional (undocumented) features identified (concrete steps and Slabs “C,” “D,” and “E”; see the Department of Parks and Recreation [DPR] site record update in Appendix B for details).

DISCUSSION
The resource within the project area (33-024106) was previously evaluated as not a “historical resource” under CEQA (Goodwin 2015). The previously undocumented features are marginal, all date to the 1940s (decades after the period of significance for the City, during its formative era of 1869–1888), there is no historic-period refuse within the project area, and the previous evaluation of this portion of the resource (within APNs 434-080-025-2 and 434-080-026-3) as not a “historical resource” under CEQA remains valid (Shephard 2007; Goodwin 2014). Therefore, any impacts to the resource are not significant and it does not need to be considered further in project planning.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 9

RECOMMENDATIONS
A cultural resources records search, additional research, and a field survey were conducted for the project area. Although a resource was previously documented within the project area, it is a marginal historic-period site (remnant foundations and refuse) that was previously evaluated as not a “historical resource” under CEQA, and the current study results do not change that determination.

Therefore, due to the nature of the cultural resource within the project area (not significant) and the lack of prehistoric resources within 1 mile, there is little to no potential for significant impacts to cultural resources and no further investigations or archaeological monitoring are recommended.

STANDARD CONDITIONS
In the event previously undocumented archaeological resources are identified during earthmoving activities, further work in the area should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the nature of the find(s) and has determined appropriate treatment.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall take place until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 10

REFERENCES
Aislin-Kay, Marnie, and Michael Dice
2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Tracts #35392, #35393, and #35394, The Rancho Diamante Project, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California.

Barrows, David Prescott
1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahilla [sic] Indians of Southern California. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, R.F. Heizer, ed. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. pp. 575–587. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

California Geological Survey
2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. California Department of Conservation.

Goodwin, Riordan
2014 DPR Site Record for 33-024106/CA-RIV-011852.
2015 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program, Ramona Expressway Widening Phase II, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. LSA.

Gunther, Jane D.
1984 Riverside California Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Company, Riverside.

Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hemet-San Jacinto Genealogical Society (HSJGS)
1989 San Jacinto Valley – Past and Present. Curtis Media Corp., Dallas, Texas Historic Aerials (HistoricAerials.com)
Var. 1966–1996 aerial photographs of project area.

Hooper, Lucile
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 16, No. 6. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 11 James, Harry C.
1960 The Cahuilla Indians. Westernlore Press, Los Angeles. Reprinted in 1969 and 1985 by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Kenney, Miles D.
1999 Emplacement, Offset History, and Recent Uplift of Basement within the San Andreas Fault System, Northeastern San Gabriel Mountains. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. 279 pp.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 8. No. 2. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Reprinted in 1976, Dover Publications, New York.

Moratto, Michael J.
2004 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Reprinted by Coyote Press in 2004.

Morton, Douglas, and Fred K. Miller
2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ × 60’ Quadrangles, California.

Version 1.0. Digital Preparation by Pamela M. Cossette and Kelly R. Bovard. Prepared by the United States Geologic Survey in Cooperation with the California Division of Mines and Geology. Open File Report 2006–1217. Map Scale 1:100,000.

Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb
1976 Geology of California, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Santa Barbara.

Peterson, Lynn
2014 Personal communication regarding the Woodhead/Quandt Ranch.

Sharp, R.P.
1976 Geology: Field Guide to Southern California. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Second Edition: 181.

Shepard, Richard S.
2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Crossroads at San Jacinto Commercial Development, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. Richard Shepard Consulting Services.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23» 12 Schoenherr, Allan A.
1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Stever, Benjamin Scherzer, and Curt Duke
2017 Cultural Resource Study for the San Jacinto Downtown Specific Plan, San Jacinto, Riverside County. Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC
Strong, William D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1–358. Berkeley.

United States Geological Survey
1979 San Jacinto, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 1952 San Jacinto, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 1954 San Jacinto, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology. In California, R. Heizer, ed. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. pp. 550–563. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. Moratto with contributions by D.A.

Fredrickson, C. Raven, and C. N. Warren. pp. 339–430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 1986 Fort Irwin Historic Preservation Plan, Volume 2: The Research Overview. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. Copies also available from National Park Service-Western Region, San Francisco, and National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C.

Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In W.L. D’Azevedo ed., Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, pp. 183–193. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

LSA

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23»

APPENDIX A

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
LSA
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-01725 1983 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF

THE MANZANITA GARDEN APARTMENTS,

SAN JACINTO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA

ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.

RIVERSIDE
NADB-R - 1082050; PINTO, DIANA
Voided - MF-1850
RI-05671 2004 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower
Project in Riverside County, California, Site
Name/Number: CA-7608/ Domengoni
NADB-R - 1087034; Erika Thal EarthTouch, Inc.

Submitter - CA-7260B
RI-05672 2003 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT AND PHASE II CULTURAL
RESOURCES EVALUATION: TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 20341, RAMONA ESTATES,

SAN JACINTO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA

SHEPARD, RICHARD BONTERRA CONSULTING
S., and JEANETTE A.

MCKENNA
NADB-R - 1087035 33-007834, 33-007835
RI-05718 2004 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO.
32376, WESTERN VILLAGE, SAN JACINTO,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NADB-R - 1087081 SHEPARD, RICHARD S. BONTERRA CONSULTING 33-007297 RI-05769 2005 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR THE
FOOTHILLS RANCH PROJECT, A 48.9

ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

KYLE CONSULTING FOR

JAMES AND BRIGGS

ARCHEOLOGICAL

SERVICES
NADB-R - 1087132 KYLE, CAROLYN
RI-05772 2004 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

FOR THE NORTH SAN JACINTO SEWER

PROJECT, CITY OF SAN JACINTO,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NADB-R - 1087135 JONES & STOKES JONES & STOKES 33-007383 RI-06478 2005 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, SAN

JACINTO MDP DETENTION BASIN, IN THE

CITY OF SAN JACINTO, RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TANG, BAI, MICHAEL CRM TECH

HOGAN, DEIRDRE
ENCARNACION, and

DANIEL BALLESTER
NADB-R - 1087843;
Submitter - CRM

TECH CONTRACT
#1675A
RI-06742 2005 Cultural Resource Assessment: 39-Acre
Stein Project (APN 431-090-009-8), City of
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
NADB-R - 1088109; David Brunzell LSA Associates, Inc.

Submitter - LSA
Project No. LEN 547
RI-06883 2006 Archaeological Site Visit and Background
Study for the Coventry Acres Development
Project, San Jacinto, Riverside County,
California
SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Kevin Hunt, James
Clifford, and Stephen
O'Neil
Submitter - 11342-
244
RI-06885 2005 Cultural Resources Survey for the Ramona
Expressway Widening Project: State Street to
Lake Park Drive, San Jacinto, Riverside
County, California.

SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Kevin Hunt and Alex
Wesson
Submitter - 9887-168 33-003970, 33-003971

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-07531 2007 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Assessor's Parcel No. 434-200-006,
City of San Jacinto, Riverside County,
California
Tang, Bai "Tom", Michael CRM TECH
Hogan, John J. Eddu,
and Josh Smallwood
Submitter - CRM 33-016708
TECH Contract No.
2150
RI-07533 2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Report: Crossroads at San Jacinto
Commercial Development, City of San
Jacinto, Riverside County, California
Richard Shepard Consulting
Services
Richard S. Shepard
RI-07557 2007 A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for the San Jacinto Retail Park, APN 434-050-
014, a 1.7 Acre Property, in the City of San
Jacinto, Riverside County, California
Hoover, Anna N., Kristie L&L Environmental, Inc.

R. Blevins, and Hugh M.

Wagner
RI-07559 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Ramona Expressway Cell Site Project, 1283 Ramona
Expressway, San Jacinto, California, Site ID#
CA-04-RC001; APN 431-030-053-2; Project
No. CES04.070
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Smith, Brian F. and Dylan
S. Amerine
RI-07638 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Quail Ranch Estates, San Jacinto, Riverside
County, California
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Smith, Brian F. and
Adriane Dorrler
RI-07860 2008 Phase I Archaeological Records Search and Field Survey on a 1.86-Acre Property, APN:
434-353-023 (Parcel #105), Located on
Idyllwild Drive, in the City of San Jacinto,
Riverside County, California
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.

Scott Crull
RI-07898 2007 A Phase Archaeological Assessment for the 218, LLC Project, City of San Jacinto,
California, APNs 434-020-022, 434-020-023,
434-020-024
Sara Moreno and Brian Brian F. Smith & Associates
F. Smith
RI-07988 2009 Addendum to: Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: San Jacinto River Levee
Project, in and near the City of San Jacinto,
Riverside County, California
Josh Smallwood and CRM TECH, Colton, CA
Daniel Ballester
Submitter - CRM 33-017364
TECH Contract No.
2294A
RI-08144 2006 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review Ramona
Expressway and Alessandro Avenue Project
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.

Michael Brandman
Associates
Jennifer M. Sanka
RI-08160 2008 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan In
and near the City of San Jacinto Riverside
County, California
CRM Tech, Colton,
California
Michael Hogan and Bai
Tang

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-08350 2009 Historical / Archaeological Resources Survey Report: EMWD Citrus In-Lieu Northern
Alignment Reach 1, City of San Jacinto,
Riverside County, California.

Deidre Encarnacion, CRM TECH
Daniel Ballester, and
Laura H. Shaker
RI-08486 Other - SCE 2009 Kurt Heidelberg Arcaeological Survey Report AECOM, Inc.

Purchase Order
Number:
4500032069;
Other - WO 6077-
4800/E-4839 and E4840
RI-08651 2011 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate
IE25955-C
Michael Brandman
Associates
Wayne H. Bonner, Sarah
A. Williams, and
Kathleen A. Crawford
Submitter - IE25955-
C
RI-08687 2011 Historic/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report Assessor's Parcel No. 434-070-033
Robert Porter, Michael CRM Tech
Hogan, Laura Shaker,
and John D. Goodman II
Submitter - 2520
RI-08814 2012 An Archaeological Survey Report for SCE
Co.'s Archaeological Survey for the SCE Co.:

GRM Project
Other - Rebecca S. Orfila RSO Consulting
IO3210843/TD51875
5; 20120420;
Other - RSOC
Project No. 201238
RI-08831 2012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed San Jacinto Unified School
District Elementary/Middle School Site
Mckenna et al.

RI-08963 2013 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment For The Fountainhead Delta, LP, Family Dollar
Project, In The City Of San Jacinto, Riverside
County, California
Nicholas F. Hearth Applied Earth Works, Inc.

RI-09138 2002 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Colorado River Aqueduct
Barbara Sylvia
RI-09326 2015 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
Ramona Expressway Widening Phase II City
of San Jacinto Riverside County, California
Riordan Goodwin LSA 33-024106, 33-024107
RI-09587 2011 Cultural Resources Assessment Ramona
Expressway Widening Project Sanderson
Avenue to Main Street City of San Jacinto
Riverside County, California
Riordan Goodwin and LSA
Britt Wilson

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-10239 2017 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT FOR THE 777

COTTONWOOD AVENUE PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN JACINTO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

CALIFORNIA
Kholood Abdo-Hintzman Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
and Joan George
RI-10396 2018 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Parcel Map NO .35511
Jennifer M. Sanka, L & L Enviromental, Inc.

William R. Gillean, and
Leslie Nay Irish
33-028508
RI-10401 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
for the Mountain View Plaza Project
Brian F. Smith &
Associates, Inc.

Brian F. Smith
RI-10430 2017 Cultural Resource Study for the San Jacinto Downtown Specific Plan, San Jacinto,
Riverside County
Duke Cultural Resources
Management, LLC
Matthew Stever,
Benjamin Scherzer, and
Curt Duke
Other - C-0207
RI-10867 2016 Cultural Resources Study for the Mt. San
Jacinto Community College District, San
Jacinto Campus Master Plan Project, City of
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
Samatha Murray and Dudek
Salli Hosseini

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-004464 CA-RIV-004464 Other - IRI-POT-13H;
Other - MWD-II Reservoirs
Site Historic AH02; AH04; AH06;
AH15
1990 (G. Romani, A. Keith, J. Baker,
E. Crabtree, L. Spencer)
P-33-005776 Other - San Jacinto Forest Fire
Station;
Voided - 33-007409
Building Historic AH16 1980 (R. C. Browning, CDF); RI-10814 1994 (Mark V. Thornton, HistorianConsultant)
P-33-007298 Building Historic HP02 1982 (David Stuart, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-007299 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-007305 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-007318 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007319 Other - Bosman's Sewing Barn Building Historic HP06 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007320 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007321 Historic 1982 (Margaret Van Luven,
Riverside County Historical
Commission)
P-33-007333 Historic 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riversider
County Historical Commission)
P-33-007336 Historic 1982 (Jim Warner, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007340 Historic 1982 (Margaret Van Loven,
Riverside County Historical
Commission)
P-33-007342 Historic 1982 (Margaret Van Loven,
Riverside County Historical
Commission)
P-33-007343 Other - William Record Home Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007345 Building Historic HP33 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007347 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-007348 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007349 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007350 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007352 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007354 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007355 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007356 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Susan Stuart, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007383 Other - 21450 Potter Road;
Other - JSA 1;
Other - Ser. No. 33-2383-90
Building Historic HP02; HP33; HP46 1982 (Laura Swift, Riverside RI-05772 Historical Comm.);
2003 (Noelle Storey, Jones &
Stokes)
P-33-007386 Historic 1982 (M. Luven, Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007387 Historic 1982 (M. Luven, Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007388 Historic 1982 (D. Stuart, Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007389 Historic 1982 (S. Stuart, Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007400 Historic 1982 (S. Stuart, Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-007401 Building Historic HP02 1982 (S. Stuart, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-014994 CA-RIV-007967 Historic 2006 (Sanka, J., Michael Brandman Associates)
P-33-016708 CA-RIV-008748 Other - CRM TECH 2150-1 Building Historic AH02; AH03; AH04; RI-07531 AH05
2007 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM TECH)
P-33-017364 Other - CRM TECH 2294-1 Historic 2008 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM TECH) RI-07988, RI-09227

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-021063 CA-RIV-010911 Other - James A. Stein Property; Other - Devoe/Bandick Ranch
Complex, San Jacinto, Riv. Co.

Site Historic HP33 2012 (Jeanette A. McKenna,
Mckenna et al.)
P-33-024106 CA-RIV-011852 Other - LSA-TLK1301-S-1;
Other - Woodhead/Quandt Ranch
Site Historic AH02; AH04 2014 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA RI-09326 Associates)
P-33-028508 CA-RIV-012844 Other - SAN JACINTO RETAIL
CENTER-1;
Other - SJRC-1
Site Historic AH02 2018 (J.M.Sanka and W.R. Green, RI-10396 L&L Environmental Inc.)

C ULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
DE C EMBER 202 3

RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC P ROJECT

S AN J ACINT O, C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Report\Rich Dev LLC San Jac CRA.docx «12/07/23»

APPENDIX B

DPR SITE RECORD UPDATE
LSA
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
12/4/2023(P:\20231262 Rich Dvlpmt San Jacinto\Site record update\24106 update.doc) State of California C The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary # 33-024106
HRI #
Trinomial CA-RIV-011852

*Recorded by Chris Morgan *Date: 11/17/2023 Continuation X Update This resource was initially noted in the late 2000s, but not documented. LSA formally documented a portion of this resource (two remnant slabs and temporally ambiguous refuse) in 2014.The survey for the current project (Rich Development LLC) noted the condition was generally consistent with that of the initial site description and indicated on the site record, with four additional (undocumented) features identified (concrete steps and Slabs ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’). These features all appear to date to the 1940s (decades after the period of significance for the City during its formative era of1869-1888), there is no historic period refuse within the project area, and therefore the previous evaluation of this portion of the resource (within APNs 434-080-025-2 and 434-080-026-3) as not a “historical resource” under CEQA remains valid.

Reference:

Goodwin, Riordan
2014 DPR Site Record for 33-024106/CA-RIV-011852.

Shepard, Richard S.
2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Crossroads at San Jacinto Commercial Development, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.

Southwest view of Slab ‘E’
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Steps
Slab E
Slab D
Slab C
Slab A Slab B
Refuse Deposit

Drawn By: Date:
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) LSA-TLK1301-S-1 Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Riordan Goodwin November 21, 2023
J:\20231262\GIS\Pro\Rich Development Project\Rich Development Project.aprx (11/29/2023) DPR 523K (1/95) *Required Information
Site Boundary
!( Feature
0 50 100
Feet
S
!N
33-024106
CA-RIV-11582

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

WITH GEOLOGIC HAZARD
STUDY

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

SEC STATE STREET & RAMONA EXPRESSWAY

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NO. 3-222-0383
MAY 18, 2022
PREPARED FOR:

MR. TAB JOHNSON
RICH DEVELOPMENT CO.
1000 N. WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 200
SAN PEDRO, CA 97032
PREPARED BY:

SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
8711 MONROE COURT, SUITE A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
P: (909) 980-6455
F: (909) 980-6435
www.salem.net
GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOLOGY ● MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ● FORENSIC ● LABORATORY SAN JOSE ▪ STOCKTON ▪ FRESNO ▪ BAKERSFIELD ▪ RANCHO CUCAMONGA DALLAS, TEXAS ▪ CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
SAN JOSE ▪ STOCKTON ▪ FRESNO ▪ BAKERSFIELD ▪ RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA ▪ DALLAS, TEXAS
May 18, 2022 Project No. 3-222-0383
Mr. Tab Johnson
Rich Development Co.
1000 N. Western Avenue, Suite 200
San Pedro, CA 97032
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

WITH GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

SEC STATE STREET & RAMONA EXPRESSWAY

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Johnson:

At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Investigation with Geologic Hazard Study report for the Proposed Commercial Development to be located at the subject site.

The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of designing and constructing the project as presently proposed. In our opinion, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 1

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 2

4. FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................... 2

5. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 3

6. GEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................................... 3

6.1 Local Geologic Setting ...........................................................................................................3

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................... 4

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity...........................................................................................................4

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................................................5

7.3 Ground Shaking......................................................................................................................5

7.4 Liquefaction............................................................................................................................5

7.5 Seismic Densification (Dry Seismic Settlement).....................................................................6

7.6 Lateral Spreading....................................................................................................................6

7.7 Subsidence..............................................................................................................................6

7.8 Collapsible/Expansive or Hydroconsolidatable Soils............................................................6

7.9 Flood and Dam Inundation .....................................................................................................6

7.10 Landslides/Slope Instability/Debris Flow ..............................................................................7

7.11 Wind and Water Erosion.........................................................................................................7

7.12 Tsunamis and Seiches.............................................................................................................7

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.................................................................. 7

8.1 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................7

8.2 Groundwater...........................................................................................................................8

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening ........................................................................................................8

8.4 Percolation Testing .................................................................................................................9

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 10

9.1 General .................................................................................................................................10

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................................12

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics......................................................................................13

9.4 Materials for Fill...................................................................................................................13

9.5 Grading.................................................................................................................................14

9.6 Shallow Foundations.............................................................................................................17

9.7 Caisson Foundations for Canopy Structures..........................................................................18

9.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ......................................................................................................18

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance .................................................................20

9.10 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................21

9.11 Temporary Excavations........................................................................................................21

9.12 Underground Utilities...........................................................................................................23

9.13 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................................23

9.14 Pavement Design ..................................................................................................................24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................ 24

10.1 Plan and Specification Review..............................................................................................24

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services....................................................................24

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS........................................................... 25

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3A, Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3B, Regional Geologic Map Explanation
Figure 4, Regional Fault Map
Figure 5, Liquefaction Potential Map
Figure 6, Flood Zone Map
Figure 7, Subsidence Potential Zone Map
APPENDIX A – FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 through A-14, Logs of Exploratory Soil Borings B-1 through B-14 Percolation Test Results, P-1 through P-3
Liquefaction Analysis Report
Dry Sand Seismic Settlement Analysis
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Consolidation Test Results
Direct Shear Test Results
Gradation Curves
Corrosivity Test Results
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Proctor Test Results APPENDIX C – EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
Project No. 3-222-0383 - 1 -

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

WITH GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

SEC STATE STREET & RAMONA EXPRESSWAY

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation with Geologic Hazard Study for the proposed Commercial Development to be located at the southeast corner of State Street and Ramona Expressway in the city of San Jacinto, California (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map).

The purpose of our geotechnical engineering investigation was to observe and sample the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the project as presently proposed.

The scope of this investigation included a field exploration, percolation testing, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Our field exploration was performed on April 21, 2022, and included the drilling of fourteen (14) small-diameter soil borings to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below existing grade at the site. Additionally, three (3) percolation tests were performed at depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grade for determination of the infiltration rate. The locations of the soil borings and percolation tests are depicted on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A detailed discussion of our field investigation, exploratory boring logs and percolation test results are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results in tabular and graphic format. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, SALEM should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Earthwork and Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix C. If text of the report conflict with the specifications in Appendix C, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the Site Plan provided to us, we understand that the proposed development of the site will include construction of a commercial center on a 14-acre vacant land. The development will include five (5) 3,400 square-foot restaurant buildings, a 4,600 square-foot restaurant building with drive-thru, a 5,000 square-foot Shops building with drive-thru, a 5,200 square-foot convenience store, an 8-pump fuel canopy with underground storage tanks, an approximately 3,600 square-foot automated carwash drive-thru, a 16,000 square-foot Major 1 building, a 2-story 35,520 square-foot Major 2 building, a 25,000 square-foot Major 3 Project No. 3-222-0383 - 2 -
building, and trash enclosure. Parking and landscaping are also planned to be associated with the development. Maximum wall load is expected to be on the order of 3 kips per linear foot. Maximum column load is expected to be on the order of 50 kips. Floor slab soil bearing pressure is expected to be on the order of 150 psf.

A site grading plan was not available at the time of preparation of this report. As the existing project area is relatively flat, we anticipate that cuts and fills during the earthwork will be minimal and limited to providing level building pads and positive site drainage. In the event that changes occur in the nature or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of our report are modified.

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is rectangular in shape and encompasses approximately 14.1 acres. The site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of N. State Street and W. Ramona Expressway in the city of San Jacinto, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1).

The site is currently a vacant land with sparse weeds. Two concrete driveway approach aprons are located along Ramona Expressway as part of street widening in 2013. The site gently sloping down to the west with elevations ranging between approximately 1,530 to 1,521 feet above mean sea level based on Google Earth imagery.

4. FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The exploratory test borings (B-1 through B-14) were drilled on April 21, 2022 in the areas shown on the Site Plan, Figure

2. The test borings were advanced with 6½-inch diameter hollow stem augers rotated by a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig. The test borings were extended to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below existing grade.

The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a field engineer and stratification lines were approximated on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings were generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart, in Appendix "A." The logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix "A." The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol.

The location of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted.

Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings. The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; SPT samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their natural moisture content. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings after completion of the drilling.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 3 -

5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, in-situ density, shear strength, consolidation potential, maximum density and optimum moisture determination, and gradation of the materials encountered.

In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "B." This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix "A."

6. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The subject site is located within the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 miles to 100 miles in width. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the Southern California batholith. The Peninsular Ranges Province is divided into three northwest-trending fault-bounded structural blocks – from west to east – the Santa Ana Mountains, Perris, and San Jacinto Mountains (Morton and Miller, 2006). The Santa Ana Mountains block (west of the subject site) extends from the coast to the Elsinore Fault zone. The western margin of the Perris structural block underlies the subject site.

Paleocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks underlie the western portion of the Santa Ana Mountains structural block. The eastern portion, a highly faulted structural anticline, is cored by a basement assemblage of Mesozoic metasedimentary and Cretaceous batholithic and volcanic rocks. A thick section of primarily upper Cretaceous marine and Paleogene marine and nonmarine rocks overly this basement.

The Perris structural block is a large mass of granitic rock generally bounded by the San Jacinto Fault, the Elsinore Fault, the Santa Ana River and a non-defined southeast boundary. The Perris Block has had a history of vertical land movements of several thousand feet due to shifts in the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults.

6.1 Local Geologic Setting
The subject site lies near the southwest face of the San Jacinto Mountains in the Perris structural block.

The site is in an area of relatively low relief between the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast, the Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest. The Perris block is underlain by lithologically diverse prebatholithic metasedimentary rocks intruded by plutons of the Cretaceous Peninsular Ranges batholith. Suprabatholithic volcanic rocks are preserved in the western part of the block. Several erosional and depositional surfaces are developed on the Perris block and thin to relatively thick sections of nonmarine, mainly Quaternary sediments discontinuously cover the basement.

Surficial deposits in the vicinity of the subject site are indicated on regional geologic maps (Dibblee, 2003) to be comprised predominately of Quaternary alluvium. Specifically, formational materials mapped at the subject site are surficial sediments (Qa) on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 3A. The surficial sediment deposits are composed of alluvial deposits along the valley floors and consists of alluvial sand and clay of valley areas, covered by gray soil, and includes stream channel gravel and sand in mountain Project No. 3-222-0383 - 4 -
areas. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling are consistent with those mapped in the area. For approximate depths and more detailed descriptions, please refer to the enclosed logs of soil borings (Appendix A). The materials were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System.

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground-shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time.

There are no known active fault traces in the project vicinity. The project area is not within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault (Special Studies) Zone and will not require a special site investigation by an Engineering Geologist. Soils on site are classified as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. The proposed structures are determined to be in Seismic Design Category E.

To determine the distance of known active faults within 100 miles of the site, we used the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based application 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters.

Site latitude is 33.8007° North; site longitude is 116.9685° West. The ten closest active faults are summarized below in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1

REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name Distance to
Site (miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude, Mw
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV+A+CC+B+SM 0.6 7.9
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV 1.2 7.4
San Jacinto; A+CC+B+SM 1.6 7.6
S. San Andreas;
PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO 13.8 8.2
S. San Andreas; BG+CO 14.2 7.4
Elsinore; W+GI 21.4 7.3
San Jacinto; SBV 21.5 7.1
Elsinore; W+GI+T+J+CM 21.5 7.9
Pinto Mtn 22.6 7.3
S. San Andreas; PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB 28.2 8.0
The faults tabulated above and numerous other faults in the region are sources of potential ground motion. However, earthquakes that might occur on other faults throughout California are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could subject the site to intense ground shaking.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 5 -

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards(Figure 4, Fault Map). No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low.

7.3 Ground Shaking
Seismic coefficients and spectral response acceleration values were developed based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC methodology for determining design ground motion values is based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, which incorporate both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion.

Based on the 2019 CBC, a Site Class D represents the on-site soil conditions with standard penetration resistance, N-values, averaging greater than 15 blow per foot but less than 50 blows per foot in the upper 100 feet below site grade. A table providing the recommended design acceleration parameters for the project site, based on a Site Class D designation, is included in Section 9.2.1 of this report.

Based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, the estimated design peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) was determined to be

1.103g (based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion).

7.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand.

The soils encountered within the depth of 51½ feet on the project site consisted predominately of loose to dense silty sand, sand with various amounts of silt or clay, and poorly graded sand with various amounts of silt; and firm to very stiff sandy silt with various amounts of clay. Free groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of 40 feet below ground surface based on the County of Riverside Geologic Hazards Map (2004) and regional groundwater data. The Riverside County Office of Information Technology GIS website shows the subject site to be in a moderate liquefaction potential area (Figure 5, Liquefaction Potential Map).

The potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using LiqIT computer program (version 4.7.5) developed by GeoLogismiki of Greece. For the analysis, a maximum earthquake magnitude of 8.2 Mw, a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 1.10g (PGAM) and a groundwater depth of 40 feet were considered appropriate for the liquefaction analysis. The analysis indicated that the on-site soils had a low potential for liquefaction and that the total liquefaction-induced settlement was calculated to be negligible. The liquefaction analysis is included in Appendix A.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 6 -

7.5 Seismic Densification (Dry Seismic Settlement)
One common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the high seismicity of the region, any loose granular materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. Analysis of dynamic densification of “dry” soil in the upper 50 feet of the existing soil profile was performed.

For the analysis, an earthquake magnitude of 7.9 Mw and a design horizontal ground surface acceleration of

0.735g (2/3 of PGAM based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion) were considered appropriate for the analysis. The seismic densification of dry to damp alluvial sandy soils due to onsite seismic activity is calculated to have a total settlement of approximately 1.39 inches. For the relatively uniform site conditions, the differential seismic settlement is estimated to be half of the total seismic settlement. The differential seismic settlement, along a 30-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, is estimated to be approximately 0.7 inches. Documentation of the settlement analysis is included in Appendix A.

7.6 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site topography, we judge the likelihood of lateral spreading to be low.

7.7 Subsidence
The Riverside County Office of Information Technology GIS website shows the subject site to be in an active subsidence potential area (Figure 7, Subsidence Potential Map). Based on the existence of relatively medium dense to dense soil conditions, the geologic hazard potential due to subsidence is considered to be low.

7.8 Collapsible/Expansive or Hydroconsolidatable Soils
Test data in this geotechnical report show that soil samples consolidated from approximately 3½ to 6 percent after a maximum 12.8 ksf load. Hydroconsolidation (collapse upon wetting) at a load of 1.6 ksf was approximately ½ to 1¼ percent. The potential for collapse should be considered moderate. Soil samples collected from surface to the proposed foundation depths are considered to have a very low to low expansion potential. The proposed site preparation methods recommended on our geotechnical report should address these geotechnical issues.

7.9 Flood and Dam Inundation
The County of Riverside GIS website shows the subject site is not located in a flood zone (Figure 6, Flood Zone Map). Based on the Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 6 – Safety Element, Figure 4, “Flood Hazard Zone”, the subject site is located in a 500-Year Flood Zone with Reduced Risk from Levees.

Based on the Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 6 – Safety Element, Figure 5, “Dam Hazard Inundation”, the subject site is located in a Dam Inundation Area.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 7 -

7.10 Landslides/Slope Instability/Debris Flow
The subject site is on a gently (<5%) sloping grade, over 1 mile from the nearest significant topographic change. As such, landslide/slope instability/rock fall issues pose a very low risk. Due to the site’s distance from significant topography, topography-related debris flows are a low risk.

7.11 Wind and Water Erosion
Based on SALEM’s soil boring logs for the subject site, surface soils consist predominantly of loose to dense silty sand, sand with various amounts of silt or clay, and poorly graded sand with various amounts of silt; and firm to very stiff sandy silt with various amounts of clay. Soils of this consistency have been shown to possess relatively good resistance to wind and water erosion. The site is essentially flat, minimizing the potential for water erosion. The site will be completely covered by buildings, pavement or landscaping after development, minimizing long-term wind erosion potential.

7.12 Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically-induced seiche is considered unlikely.

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consisted of alluvium deposits of loose to dense silty sand, sand with various amounts of silt or clay, and poorly graded sand with various amounts of silt; and firm to very stiff sandy silt with various amounts of clay.

No significant fill material was encountered in our borings. Undocumented fill materials are not suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill. The extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction. Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted.

The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The locations of the test borings were determined by measuring from feature shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 8 -

8.2 Groundwater
The test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 40 feet below ground surface according to the County of Riverside Geologic Hazards Map (2004) and regional groundwater well data.

It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, localized pumping, and climatic conditions as well as other factors.

Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. The 2014 Edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318) has established criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water.

A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil-borne soluble salts and soluble chloride.

The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be 180 mg/kg. ACI 318 Tables 19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1 outline exposure categories, classes, and concrete requirements by exposure class. ACI 318 requirements for site concrete based upon soluble sulfate are summarized in Table 8.3 on the next page.

TABLE 8.3

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE EXPOSURE REQUIREMENTS
The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 32 mg/kg.

This level of chloride concentration is considered to be mildly corrosive.

It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, applicable manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection of buried metal pipe be closely followed.

Water Soluble
Sulfate (SO4) in
Soil, Percentage by
Weight
Exposure
Severity
Exposure
Class
Maximum
w/cm Ratio
Minimum
Concrete
Compressive
Strength
Cementations
Materials
Type

0.018 Not Severe S0 N/A 2,500 psi No Restriction
Project No. 3-222-0383 - 9 -

8.4 Percolation Testing
Three (3) percolation tests (P-1 through P-3) were performed within assumed infiltration areas and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the County of Riverside. The approximate locations of the percolation tests are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.

The boreholes were advanced to the depths shown on the percolation test worksheets. The holes were pre-saturated before percolation testing commenced. Percolation rates were measured by filling the test holes with clean water and measuring the water drops at a certain time interval. The percolation rate data are presented in tabular format at the end of this Report. The difference in the percolation rates are reflected by the varied type of soil materials at the bottom of the test holes. The test results are shown on the table below.

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Test
No.

Depth
(feet)
Tested
Infiltration Rate1
(inch/hour)
Design
Infiltration Rate2
(inch/hour)
Soil Type3
P-1
4 5.0 4.84 1.61 Silty SAND/SAND (SM/SP)
P-2 9.6 0.08 0.03 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-3 4.7 5.36 1.78 SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
1Tested infiltration Rate = (∆H 60 r) / (∆t(r + 2Havg)) 2 FS=3 according to the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook 3 At bottom of drilled holes
4 Boring B-12 collapsed and a new hole was drilled to 5 feet deep for percolation testing The soil infiltration or percolation rates are based on tests conducted with clear water. The infiltration/percolation rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. The infiltration/percolation rates will deteriorate over time due to the soil conditions and an appropriate factor of safety (FS) should be applied. According to the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook, the minimum required factor of safety is 3 (FS=3). The owner or civil engineer may elect to use a lower FS for the design; however, more frequent maintenance will be expected. The soils may also become less permeable to impermeable if the soil is compacted. Thus, periodic maintenance consisting of clearing the bottom of the drainage system of clogged soils should be expected.

The infiltration/percolation rate may become slower if the surrounding soil is wet or saturated due to prolonged rainfalls. Additional percolation tests may be conducted at bottom of the drainage system during construction to verify the infiltration/percolation rate. Groundwater, if closer to the bottom of the drainage system, will also reduce the infiltration/percolation rate.

The scope of our services did not include a groundwater study and was limited to the performance of percolation testing and soil profile description, and the submitted data only. Our services did not include those associated with septic system design. Neither did services include an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 10 -
Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring logs regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment. The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Please be advised that when performing percolation testing services in relatively small diameter borings, that the testing may not fully model the actual full scale long term performance of a given site. This is particularly true where percolation test data is to be used in the design of large infiltration system such as may be proposed for the site. The measured percolation rate includes dispersion of the water at the sidewalls of the boring as well as into the underlying soils. Subsurface conditions, including percolation rates, can change over time as fine-grained soils migrate. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites.

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 General

9.1.1 Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction of improvements at the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of available literature, analysis of data obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing program, and our understanding of the proposed development at this time.

9.1.2 The primary geotechnical constraints identified in our investigation is the presence of potentially compressible (collapsible) soils at the site. Recommendations to mitigate the effects of these soils are provided in this report.

9.1.3 Based on the Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 6 – Safety Element, Figure 4, “Flood Hazard Zone”, the subject site is located in a 500-Year Flood Zone with Reduced Risk from Levees. Based on the Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 6 – Safety Element, Figure 5, “Dam Hazard Inundation”, the subject site is located in a Dam Inundation Area. f

9.1.4 No significant fill material was encountered in our borings. Fill materials may be present onsite between our boring locations. Undocumented fill materials are not suitable to support any future structures and should be excavated and recompacted in accordance with section 9.5 of this report. The extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction.

Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 11 -

9.1.5 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.

9.1.6 The near-surface onsite soils are moisture-sensitive and are moderately compressible (collapsible soil) under saturated conditions. Excessive post-construction settlement may be experienced by proposed structures if the foundation soils become near saturated. The collapsible or weak soils should be removed and re-compacted according to the recommendations in the Grading section of this report (Section 9.5).

9.1.7 Based on the subsurface conditions at the site and the anticipated structural loading, we anticipate that the proposed buildings may be supported using conventional shallow foundations, and that the canopies can be supported using provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.

9.1.8 Provided the site is graded in accordance with the recommendations of this report and foundations constructed as described herein, we estimate that total settlement due to static and seismic loads utilizing conventional shallow foundations for the proposed building will be within 2 inches and the corresponding differential settlement, along a 30-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, should be 1 inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.003.

9.1.9 All references to relative compaction and optimum moisture content in this report are based on ASTM D 1557 (latest edition).

9.1.10 SALEM shall review the project grading and foundation plans prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. If SALEM is not provided plans and specifications for review, we cannot assume any responsibility for the future performance of the project.

9.1.11 SALEM shall be present at the site during site demolition and preparation to observe site clearing/demolition, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

9.1.12 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 12 -

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria

9.2.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2016 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters are based on Probabilistic Ground Motion of 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. The Site Class was determined based on the results of our field exploration.

TABLE 9.2.1

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Symbol Value ASCE 7-16 or
2019 CBC Reference
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 33.8007 Lat
-116.9685 Lon
Site Class -- D ASCE 7 Table 20.3-1
Soil Profile Name -- Stiff Soil ASCE 7 Table 20.3-1
Risk Category -- II Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA FPGA 1.1 ASCE 7 Table 11.8-1
Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects) PGAM 1.103 g ASCE 7 Equation 11.8-1 Seismic Design Category SDC E Table 1613.2.5
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 2.22 g Figure 1613.2.1(1-8) Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) S1 0.902 g Figure 1613.2.1(1-8)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv 1.7* Table 1613.2.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS
SMS 2.22 g Equation 16-36
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1
SM1 1.533 g* Equation 16-37
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS=⅔SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 1.48 g Equation 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SD1=⅔SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 1.022 g* Equation 16-39
Short Term Transition Period (SD1/SDS),
Seconds TS 0.691 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.6
Long Period Transition Period
(seconds) TL 8 ASCE 7-16, Figure 22-14
* Determined per ASCE Table 11.4-2 for use in calculating TS only.

9.2.2 Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 11.4.8, structures on Site Class D with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific motion analysis may not be required based on Exceptions listed in ASCE 11.4.8. The Structural Engineer should verify whether Project No. 3-222-0383 - 13 -
Exception No. 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, is valid for the site. In the event that a site specific ground motion analysis is required, SALEM should be contacted for these services.

9.2.3 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics

9.3.1 Based on the soil conditions encountered in our soil borings, the onsite soils can be excavated with moderate to laborious effort using conventional heavy-duty earthmoving equipment.

9.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements.

9.3.3 The upper soils are moisture-sensitive and moderately collapsible under saturated conditions.

These soils, in their present condition, possess moderate risk to construction in terms of possible post-construction movement of the foundations and floor systems if no mitigation measures are employed. Accordingly, measures are considered necessary to reduce anticipated collapse potential. As recommended in Section 9.5, the collapsible soils should be overexcavated and recompacted. Mitigation measures will not eliminate post-construction soil movement, but will reduce the soil movement. Success of the mitigation measures will depend on the thoroughness of the contractor in dealing with the soil conditions.

9.3.4 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally, dry to slightly moist.

Earthwork operations may encounter dry collapsible unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.

9.4 Materials for Fill

9.4.1 Excavated soils generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general Engineered Fill in structural areas, provided they do exhibit an Expansion Index greater than 20 (EI>20) and do not contain deleterious matter, organic material, or rock material larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

9.4.2 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they have complete control of the project site.

9.4.3 Import soil intended for use as Non-Expansive Engineered Fill soil shall be well-graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted.

A clean sand or very sandy soil is not acceptable for this purpose. This material should be Project No. 3-222-0383 - 14 -
approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.4.3.

TABLE 9.4.3

IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 10
Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 50
Minimum Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 80
Maximum Particle Size 3"
Maximum Plasticity Index 12
Maximum CBC Expansion Index 20

9.4.4 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered.

9.4.5 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its transportation to the site.

9.5 Grading

9.5.1 A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section as well as other portions of this report.

9.5.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

9.5.3 Site preparation should begin with removal of existing surface/subsurface structures, underground utilities (as required), any existing uncertified fill, and debris. Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with Engineered Fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

9.5.4 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 6 to 10 inches of the soils containing, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. The stripped vegetation, will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas or exported from the site.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 15 -

9.5.5 Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than ½ inch in diameter.

Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface.

Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction.

Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.

9.5.6 Any undocumented and uncompacted fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction.

9.5.7 Structural building pad areas should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside dimensions of building, including footings and non-cantilevered overhangs carrying structural loads.

9.5.8 To minimize post-construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed buildings, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building areas should be performed to a minimum depth of four (4) feet below existing grade or three (3) feet below proposed footing bottom, whichever is deeper. The extent of the overexcavation and recompaction should be verified during site grading. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside dimensions of building.

9.5.9 Within pavement areas, it is recommended overexcavation and recompaction be performed to a minimum depth of one and one-half (1½) feet below existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 2 feet beyond the pavement.

9.5.10 Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-07 Test Method.

9.5.11 All Engineered Fill (including scarified ground surfaces and backfill) should be placed in thin lifts to allow for adequate bonding and compaction (typically 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness).

9.5.12 Engineered Fill soils should be placed, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.5.13 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.14 Final pavement subgrade should be finished to a smooth, unyielding surface. We further recommend proof-rolling the subgrade with a loaded water truck (or similar equipment with high contact pressure) to verify the stability of the subgrade prior to placing aggregate base.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 16 -

9.5.15 The most effective site preparation alternatives will depend on site conditions prior to grading.

We should evaluate site conditions and provide supplemental recommendations immediately prior to grading, if necessary.

9.5.16 We do not anticipate groundwater or seepage to adversely affect construction if conducted during the drier months of the year (typically summer and fall). However, groundwater and soil moisture conditions could be significantly different during the wet season (typically winter and spring) as surface soil becomes wet; perched groundwater conditions may develop. Grading during this time period will likely encounter wet materials resulting in possible excavation and fill placement difficulties.

Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. If the construction schedule requires grading operations during the wet season, we can provide additional recommendations as conditions warrant.

9.5.17 Wet soils may become non conducive to site grading as the upper soils yield under the weight of the construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measures should be performed for stabilization. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of slurry, crushed rocks or aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting. However, the drying process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation.

To expedite the stabilizing process, slurry or crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose. If the use of slurry, crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of 2-sack slurry or ¾-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the slurry or rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform.

It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipment be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. A layer of geofabric is recommended to be placed on top of the compacted crushed rock to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock, resulting in soil movement. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar TX7) below the slurry or crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization.

Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 17 -

9.6 Shallow Foundations

9.6.1 The site is suitable for use of conventional shallow foundations consisting of continuous footings and isolated pad footings bearing in properly compacted Engineered Fill.

9.6.2 The bearing wall footings considered for the structures should be continuous with a minimum width of 15 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and extend a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. Footing concrete should be placed into a neat excavation.

9.6.3 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressures shown in the table below.

Loading Condition Allowable Bearing
Dead Load Only 2,000 psf
Dead-Plus-Live Load 2,500 psf
Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Loads 3,325 psf

9.6.4 For design purposes, total settlement due to static and seismic loadings on the order of 2 inches may be assumed for shallow footings. Differential settlement due to static and seismic loadings, along a 30-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, should be 1 inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.003. Additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete.

9.6.5 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of friction factor of 0.38 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting native subgrade.

9.6.6 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 320 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical native footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination in CBC that includes wind or earthquake loads.

9.6.7 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.

9.6.8 The foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition without significant shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be Project No. 3-222-0383 - 18 -
required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations are left open for an extended period.

9.7 Caisson Foundations for Canopy Structures

9.7.1 It is recommended that the caisson foundation should have a minimum diameter of 24 inches and a minimum depth of 7 feet below the lowest adjacent grade.

9.7.2 The caissons may be designed using an allowable sidewall friction of 150 psf. This value is for dead-plus-live loads. An allowable end bearing capacity of 3,000 psf may be used provided that the bottom of the caisson is cleaned with the use of a clean-out bucket or equivalent and inspected by our representative prior to placement of reinforcement and concrete. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination that includes wind or earthquake loads.

9.7.3 Uplift loads can be resisted by caissons using an allowable sidewall friction of 100 psf of the surface area and the weight of the caisson.

9.7.4 The total static settlement of the caisson footing is not expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential static settlement should be less than ½ inch. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied.

9.7.5 The drilled caissons may be designed for a lateral capacity of 320 pounds per square foot per foot of depth below the lowest adjacent grade to a maximum of 4,800 psf.

9.7.6 The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.

9.7.7 Sandy soils were encountered at the site. Casing of the drilled caisson will be required if caving is encountered or the drilled hole has to be left open for an extended period of time.

9.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

9.8.1 Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by six (6) inches of clean crushed aggregate base (CAB) compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. The CAB should meet the Greenbook specifications and requirements.

9.8.2 Crushed Miscellaneous or Recycled Base (CMB) containing recycled materials should not be used as granular aggregate subbase within the building areas.

9.8.3 We recommend reinforcing slabs, at a minimum, with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center, each way.

9.8.4 Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction K of 170 pounds per square inch per inch. The K value was approximated based on interrelationship of soil classification and bearing values (Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain Northwest).

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 19 -

9.8.5 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 4-inch thick slabs.

9.8.6 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system.

9.8.7 It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the structures is recommended.

9.8.8 Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and/or ASTM guidelines, whichever is more stringent. In addition, ventilation of the structure is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.

9.8.9 In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness where moisture-sensitive coverings are anticipated, construction should have a suitable waterproof vapor retarder (a minimum of 15 mils thick polyethylene vapor retarder sheeting, Raven Industries “VaporBlock 15, Stego Industries 15 mil “StegoWrap” or W.R. Meadows Sealtight 15 mil “Perminator”) incorporated into the floor slab design. The water vapor retarder should be decay resistant material complying with ASTM E96 not exceeding 0.04 perms, ASTM E154 and ASTM E1745 Class A. The vapor barriershould be placed between the concrete slab and the compacted granular aggregate subbase material. The water vapor retarder (vapor barrier) should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-94.

9.8.10 The concrete maybe placed directly on vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be inspected prior to concrete placement. Cut or punctured retarder should be repaired using vapor retarder material lapped 6 inches beyond damaged areas and taped.

9.8.11 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. This is common for project areas that contain expansive soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

9.8.12 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 20 -

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance

9.9.1 Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the table below:

Lateral Pressure
Drained and Level Backfill Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Active Pressure 40
At-Rest Pressure 60
Passive Pressure 320
Related Parameters
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.38
In-Place Soil Density (lbs/ft3) 120

9.9.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.

9.9.3 The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.

9.9.4 A safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in the usage of the values presented in the above table.

9.9.5 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5.

9.9.6 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended.

9.9.7 For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1.

9.9.8 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation shall be used:

Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Load = ⅜γKhH
2 Where: γ = In-Place Soil Density
Kh = Horizontal Acceleration = ⅔PGAM
H = Wall Height
Project No. 3-222-0383 - 21 -

9.10 Retaining Walls

9.10.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in freedraining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should be completely wrapped in nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles (filter fabric) to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock.

9.10.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.

9.10.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches.

Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼-inch in diameter.

9.10.4 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2-inch minimum diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.

9.10.5 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures.

Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.

9.11 Temporary Excavations

9.11.1 We anticipate that the majority of the sandy site soils will be classified as Cal-OSHA “Type C” soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation sloping, benching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform to the latest applicable Cal-OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal-OSHA-approved “competent person” onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.

9.11.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges Project No. 3-222-0383 - 22 -
from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load.

9.11.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.

9.11.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes presented in the following table:

RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal : Vertical)
0-5 1½:1
5-10 2½:1

9.11.5 If, due to space limitation, excavations near property lines or existing structures are performed in a vertical position, slot cuts, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction.

9.11.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 30H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.

9.11.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 23 -

9.12 Underground Utilities

9.12.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at no less than the optimum moisture content.

9.12.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to approximately 6 to 12 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding and backfill material should conform to the requirements of the governing utility agency.

9.12.3 It is suggested that underground utilities crossing beneath new or existing structures be plugged at entry and exit locations to the buildings or structures to prevent water migration. Trench plugs can consist of on-site clay soils, if available, or sand cement slurry. The trench plugs should extend 2 feet beyond each side of individual perimeter foundations.

9.12.4 The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.

9.13 Surface Drainage

9.13.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.

9.13.2 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet.

9.13.3 Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project.

Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed.

9.13.4 Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 24 -

9.14 Pavement Design

9.14.1 Based on site soil conditions, an R-value of 40 was used for the preliminary flexible asphaltic concrete pavement design. The R-value may be verified during grading of the pavement areas.

9.14.2 The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement is based on a 20-year pavement life for traffic indexes of 5.0 and 6.5. If higher traffic loading is anticipated, SALEM should be contacted to provide revised pavement thickness recommendations.

TABLE 9.14.2

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Asphaltic
Concrete
Clean Crushed
Aggregate Base*
Compacted
Subgrade*

5.0 (Parking and Vehicle Drive Areas) 3.0" 4.0" 24.0"

6.5 (Heavy Truck Areas) 4.0" 5.0" 24.0"
*95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

9.14.3 The following recommendations are for light-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

TABLE 9.14.3

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Portland Cement
Concrete*
Clean Crushed
Aggregate Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 5.0" 4.0" 24.0"

6.5 (Heavy Duty) 6.0" 5.0" 24.0"
* Min. Compressive Strength of 4,000 psi, Min. Reinforcement of No. 4 bars at 18 inches o.c. each way ** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

10.1 Plan and Specification Review

10.1.1 SALEM should review the project grading and foundation plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services

10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume Project No. 3-222-0383 - 25 -
any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.

10.2.2 SALEM should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated.

If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction. If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing.

The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the onsite testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants.

SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, that manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil.

The importation of soil and or aggregate materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

Project No. 3-222-0383 - 26 -
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Jared Christiansen, EIT
Geotechnical Staff Engineer
Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477
Project No. 3-222-0383 - 27 -

REFERENCES
Bedrossian, T.L. and Roffers, P., 2010, Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California; California Geological Survey Special Report 217; Plate 16, Santa Ana 30 X 60 Quadrangle, scale 1:100,000.

Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner, and T.M. Fumal (1997). Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seism. Res. Lett., 66, 128- 153.

California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Water Data Library website:
<http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/>.

California State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB]; Geotracker database web page; Availability:
http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov
Dibblee, Thomas W. (2003), Geologic Map of the San Jacinto Quadrangle, Riverside County, California:

U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:24,000.

Hart, E.W. (1974) Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 38 p. (Revised periodically; information on state law and zoning program for regulating development near hazardous faults.) Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller (2006) Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217, scale 1:100,000 Riverside County General Plan (2003) Chapter 6: Safety Element; Transportation and Land Management Agency (http://www.rctlma.org/genplan/content/gp/chapter06.html) OSHPD Seismic Design Maps applet tool to determine site-specific accelerations (available at http://seismicmaps.org/).

Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), Map My County (ver. 10) website:
https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=MMC_Public Wills, C.J., Weldon, R.J., II, and Bryant, W.A. (2008) California fault parameters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Appendix A in The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437A, and California Geological Survey Special Report 203A, 48 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/a/].

VICINITY MAP

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 1

SITE LOCATION
Source Image: U.S. Geological Survey, San Jacinto, California, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview (2021) NN

SITE PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO SCALE 04/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC II
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 2
LEGEND:

Soil Boring Locations
Percolation Locations
All Locations Approximate
B-1
N
B-2
B-1
B-8
B-9
P-1
P-1
P-3
B-3
B-4
B-6
B-5
B-7
P-2
B-11
B-10
B-12
B-14
B-13

Regional Geologic Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 3A
Dibblee, Thomas W. (2003), Geologic Map of the San Jacinto Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, N Scale 1:24,000.

SITE
Geologic Unit Explanation
Map Units and Symbol Explanation
Regional Geologic Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO
SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 3B
Dibblee, Thomas W. (2003), Geologic Map of the San Jacinto Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:24,000.

Fault Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO
SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 4
SITE
N

Liquefaction Potential Zone Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO
SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 5
SITE
N

Flood Zone Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO
SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 6
SITE
N

Subsidence Zone Map

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development
SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO
SCALE 05/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-222-0383 7
SITE
N

Project No. 3-222-0383 A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation (drilling) was conducted on April 21, 2022, and included a site visit, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. Percolation testing was performed on April 21 and April 22 of 2022. The locations of the exploratory borings and percolation tests are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. Percolation data tables are presented in this appendix as well. Borings were located in the field using existing reference points. Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.

In general, our borings were performed using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with 6½-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Sampling in the borings was accomplished using a hydraulic 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Samples were obtained with a 3-inch outside-diameter (OD), split spoon (California Modified) sampler, and a 2-inch OD, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches (or fraction thereof) of the 18-inch sampling interval were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts shown on the boring logs should not be interpreted as standard SPT “N” values; corrections have not been applied. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The logs depict soil and geologic conditions encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, drill rig penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing. 0 5
10 15
20 25
1525
1520
1515
1510
1505
8/6
17/6
18/6
7/6
10/6
10/6
8/6
8/6
9/6
5/6
9/6
10/6
3/6
4/6
6/6
SM
SP
SM
Silty SAND
Medium dense; dry; brown; fine
grain sand. Poorly graded SAND
Medium dense; dry; light gray; fine
to medium grain sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; mottled
brown/light gray; fine to medium
grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above; loose; brown. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG 35 20
17 19
10 1.4

0.9 4.5

10.1 6.2
110.8

96.3 -
-
-
Test Boring: B-1 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0383
Date: 04/21/2022
Client: Rich Development Co. Project: Proposed Commercial Development Location: SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway, San Jacinto, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: CC
Drill Type: CME 75 Elevation: 1,529' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-1

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 1520
1515
1510
1505
1500
5/6
9/6
11/6
4/6
8/6
9/6
4/6
6/6
8/6
6/6
10/6
10/6
6/6
5/6
8/6
9/6
18/6
11/6
SP
SM
SP
SM
SP-SM
Poorly graded SAND
Medium dense; dry; light gray; fine
to coarse grain sand. Grades as above; fine to medium
grain sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; mottled
brown/light gray; fine to medium
grain sand. Poorly graded SAND
Medium dense; slightly moist; light
gray; fine to medium grain sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; brown; fine
grain sand. Poorly graded SAND with Silt
Medium dense; moist; mottled
brown/light gray; fine to medium
grain sand.
20 17
14 20
13 29

1.3 1.2

7.6 2.0

7.1 12.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-2 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0383
Date: 04/21/2022
Client: Rich Development Co. Project: Proposed Commercial Development Location: SEC of State Street & Ramona Expressway, San Jacinto, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 75 Elevation: 1,524' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-2

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
2 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
1495
1490
1485
1480
1475
1470
1465
5/6
6/6
8/6
13/6
21/6
21/6
13/6
20/6
12/6
5/6
10/6
12/6
5/6
11/6
13/6
ML
SP-SC
SM
Sandy SILT
Stiff; very moist; dark gray; fine
grain sand; trace clay. Poorly graded SAND with Clay
Dense; moist; mottled dark and
light gray; fine to coarse grain
sand. Silty SAND
Dense; very moist; dark gray; fine
to medium grain sand. Grades as above; medium dense. Grades as above. End of boring at 51.5 feet BSG. 14 42
32 22
24 20.2

11.9 21.0

20.1 29.0
-
-
-
-
-