Agenda packet — Upland City Council, June 9, 2025 (part 12 of 25)

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-69
the projected 2040 City households). The addition of 189 residents within the City would result in population growth within the City; however, this additional population is consistent with the City, County, and regional (SCAG) growth projections depicted in Table 3.3.11B.

The City’s General Plan does not specify or anticipate when complete buildout would occur, as long- range demographic and economic trends are difficult to predict. The designation within the General Plan of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site would be developed with that use during the planning period, as most development depends on property owner initiative and market tends. Although the Project Site’s existing land use designation is Public Utilities-Flood Control/Recharge, the proposed GPA to Villa Serena Specific Plan, resulting in an increase in residential uses beyond that which was planned for by the City at General Plan buildout, would contribute to the balance of the City’s current and future jobs-to-housing ratio consistent with both the SCAG forecasts and the growth forecasts for the City, as detailed in Table 3.3.14A. The Project would accommodate overall planned growth in the City and the SCAG region, and it would contribute to meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. Additionally, the Project Site is located within an urbanized area and would be connected to existing municipal roadways and utility infrastructure.

The Project would relocate a portion of the existing on-site flood control basin adjacent to the east in order to maintain adequate local flood control and recharge, but it would not otherwise include the construction of new roadways or infrastructure beyond that which would serve only the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The Proposed Project entails development of 65 residential dwelling units on a property that currently does not contain any housing. Therefore, no impact relative to the displacement of housing and people would occur. No mitigation is required.

3.3.15 Public Services
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Effective, July 22, 2017, fire protection and emergency medical response services are now being provided by the San Bernardino County Fire District. Specifically, the city service coverage is provided by SBCFD Division 1. The nearest fire station to the Project Site is San Bernardino County Fire Station 164 located at 1825 N Campus Avenue (approximately 1.0 mile northwest of the Project Site) with an estimated 5-minute travel time to the Site. The next nearest fire station to the Project Site is San Bernardino County Fire Station 161 located at 475 North 2nd Avenue

Page 1343 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Average time of response to emergencies in the City is seven minutes, and the goal is for the SBCFD to arrive within five minutes or less 80 percent of the time.82 Through compliance with California Vehicle Code 21806(A)(1), which requires all vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles, travel time between the nearest fire station and the Site is expected to be between five and seven minutes. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the City’s response time standard.

The Project includes the construction of 65 single-family homes, which is expected to increase the City’s population by approximately 189 persons. This could incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services, but not to the degree that the existing fire stations could not meet the demand.

Project design features incorporated into the structural design and layout of the proposed residential units would keep service demand increases to a minimum. For example, General Plan Policies PFS-2.9 and PFS-2.10 require new development, including the Proposed Project, to incorporate adequate emergency water flow, fire-resistant design and materials, early warning systems and evacuation routes, and to identify and mitigate any fire hazards during the development review process.83 Additionally, the City maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding cities (e.g., Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Montclair, and Claremont), which allow for the services of nearby fire departments to assist the City during major emergencies. Therefore, it is possible the Rancho Cucamonga Fire-San Bernardino Road Station at 9612 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, approximately 3.3 miles to the east with an estimated 8-minute travel time would provide fire protection services in the event of an emergency.

The Proposed Project design would be submitted to and approved by the SBCFD prior the issuance of building permits. Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public safety structures and purchasing equipment for new public safety structures. Any future construction of new or expansion of existing fire protection facilities would be subject to Project-level environmental review and Site-specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated. However, the addition of 65 single-family residential structures represents approximately

0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households, which is a negligible amount of the future growth forecasts in the City. Therefore, constructing the Project in accordance with local policies would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the additional construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Police services within the City are provided by the Upland Police Department (UPD). The nearest UPD station is located at 1499 West 13th Street (approximately 3.3 miles west of the Site). The UPD determines response times based on the priority levels. Priority 1,

82 Section 5.17. Fire Protection, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.17-5, City of Upland, September 2015.
83 Ibid.

Page 1344 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-71
which are calls regarding immediate threat of life or immediate need for assistance, has a target response time of 5 minutes. There are no target response times for calls with priority ratings of 2 through 6.

The City monitors staffing levels to ensure that adequate police protection and response times continue to be provided as individual development Projects are proposed and on an annual basis as part of the City Council’s budgeting process. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant reduction in police response times because of the continual monitoring of police staffing levels by the City.

Funding for new police facilities commensurate with the increased demand for services in the City would be provided from capital improvement fees levied on new development. These DIFs are one- time charges applied to new development and are imposed to raise revenue for the construction or expansion of capital facilities located out of the Project boundaries of a new development that benefit the area. DIFs enable the City to collect fair-share fees from new development Projects to fund new infrastructure and services. DIFs are collected for specific infrastructure needs and are deposited into different accounts representing these requirements.

The Project would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City for new development with regard to public safety. The Project would be required to pay DIFs used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public safety structures and purchasing equipment for new public safety structures. In addition, the City maintains mutual aid agreements with police agencies in the surrounding cities (e.g., Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Montclair, and Claremont) and with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which allow for the services of nearby police departments to assist the UPD during major emergencies. Payment of DIFs commensurate with the increased demand for services in the City would offset any increase in demand for police services.

Any future construction of new or expansion of existing police protection facilities would be subject to Project-level environmental review and Site-specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated. However, the addition of 65 single- family residential structures represents approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households, which is a negligible amount of the future growth forecasts in the City. Therefore, the constructing of Project in accordance with local policies would not require new or physically altered police protection facilities, the additional construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The addition of 65 single-family residential structures is expected to generate an additional 189 residents in the City. This increase in population and households represents approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households, respectively, which is a negligible amount of the future growth forecasts in the City.

California Government Code (Section 65995[b]) establishes the base amount of allowable developer

Page 1345 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-72
fees imposed by school districts. These base amounts are commonly referred to as “Level 1 fees” and are subject to inflation adjustment every two years. School districts are placed into a specific “level” based on school impact fee amounts that are imposed on the development. With the adoption of Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1A in 1998, schools meeting certain criteria can now adopt Level 2 and 3 developer fees. The amount of fees that can be charged over the Level 1 amount is determined by the district’s total facilities needs and the availability of state matching funds. If there is state facility funding available, districts are able to charge fees equal to 50 percent of their total facility costs, termed “Level 2” fees. If, however, there are no State funds available, “Level 3” fees may be imposed for the full cost of their facility needs.84 Per California Government Code, “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed … are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts … on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The Project will be required to pay these development fees in accordance with Government Code 65995 and Education Code 17620. Through payment of development fees in accordance with Government Code 65995 and Education Code 17620, impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to responses to Checklist Questions 3.3.16a and 3.3.16b. e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. It is reasonable to conclude the payment of required fees, taxes, and other payments by the Applicant would sufficiently offset any incremental increase in demand for other governmental services. Any future construction of new or expansion of existing governmental facilities would be subject to Project-level environmental review and Site-specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated.

The addition of 65 single-family residential structures is expected to generate an additional 189 residents in the City. This increase in population and households represents approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households, respectively, which is a negligible amount of the future growth forecasts in the City. In the absence of any substantial increase in population, the construction of new or expansion of existing governmental facilities is not required. Impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

84 An Evaluation of the School Facility Fee Affordable Housing Assistance Programs, Legislative Analyst’s Office, January 2001. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2001/011701_school_facility_fee.html (accessed October 4, 2018).

Page 1346 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-73

3.3.16 Recreation
Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes provision of approximately 42,266 square feet (approximately one acre) of common area open space distributed throughout the community. A

0.75-acre recreational area is planned with a swimming pool, a pool house with restrooms, a children’s play area, and barbeque and picnic areas. Four individual pocket parks totaling 9,526 square feet are planned for passive recreational use by residents. Additionally, the Project includes a private two-way street system with sidewalks on both sides of the street providing pedestrian connectivity throughout the Site. The Project Site is within walking and biking distance to existing recreational facilities including Sierra Vista Park located approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project Site and Upland Memorial Park is located approximately 0.8 mile south of the Project Site.

As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.14a, the Proposed Project would not create a significant new increase in population that would utilize nearby recreational facilities such as Sierra Vista Park or Upland Memorial Park such that it would result in a substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of the facility. Implementation of the Proposed Project would include development of on-site recreation facilities and enhance neighborhood character. Any physical impacts resulting from development of the proposed on-site recreational facilities are addressed throughout this Initial Study and mitigated as necessary to levels below significance thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

3.3.17 Transportation/Traffic
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes a private two-way street system with sidewalks on both sides of the street providing pedestrian connectivity throughout the Site. The proximity of the Site within walking and biking distance to existing recreational and commercial facilities helps to reduce automobile trips to and from the Project Site. The connection of the Project street and walkway system to 15th Street provides for on-street bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to 15th Street continuing bike and pedestrian access to commercial services located at North Campus Avenue and 19th Street approximately one mile to the north of the Site. The systems also provide

Page 1347 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-74
walking and biking access to Sierra Vista Park located approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project Site and/or Upland Memorial Park located approximately 0.8 mile south Site.

Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving the City and surrounding area, provides bus service in the Project area. To provide regional mass-transit service, Omnitrans Routes 66 and 86 include bus stops at the intersection of Alta Avenue and Foothill Boulevard approximately 0.75 mile south of the Project Site. Additionally, Omnitrans Route 83 includes bus stops at the intersection of Campus Avenue and 16th Street approximately 1.15 miles northwest of the Project Site.

Foothill Boulevard connects the Fontana Metrolink Transit Center to the Montclair Transit Center.

The Project would not alter the location or frequency of Omnitrans or Metrolink transportation in the study area. The Project would adhere to applicable City standards that support and/or facilitate alternative modes of transportation. Through the City’s project review process, policies, plans, and/or programs supporting alternative transportation would be reviewed and incorporated as applicable. Adherence to standard measures would ensure Project impacts related to this issue remain less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS), which are defined using the letter grades A through F.

These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorate as traffic approaches the absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced.

All study intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Upland, which uses LOS D as the minimum level of service standard for intersection operations. Therefore, study intersections in the City that operate at LOS E or F are required to be mitigated to LOS D or better.85 A Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared and included the following seven intersections as the Project study area for LOS analysis (Appendix I):

1. Campus Avenue & 14th Street;

2. Driveway 1 & 15th Street (Future Intersection);

3. Driveway 2 & 15th Street (Future Intersection);

4. Alta Avenue & 15th Street;

5. Alta Avenue & 14th Street;

6. Alta Avenue & Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66); and

7. Grove Avenue & Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66).

85 LOS D delay in seconds is between >25 and ≤35 for unsignalized intersections and between >35 and ≤55 for signalized intersections.

LOS E delay in seconds is between >35 and ≤50 for unsignalized intersections and between >55 and ≤80 for signalized intersections.

LOS F delay in seconds is >50 for unsignalized intersections and >80 for signalized intersections.

Page 1348 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-75
Each of these intersections was analyzed for LOS under the following six scenarios:
• Existing 2018 Conditions;
• Existing with Project Conditions;
• Opening Year (2020) without Project Conditions;
• Opening Year (2020) with Project Conditions;
• Year 2040 without Project Conditions; and
• Year 2040 with Project Conditions.

For the purposes of analyzing traffic scenarios, the Project will be constructed in a single phase with an anticipated opening year of 2020. Trip generation rates are calculated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) for Land Use 210 “Single Family Detached.” The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 623 trip- ends per day with 50 a.m. peak hour trips and 65 p.m. peak hour trips. The following analysis is based on the findings of the Project-specific TIA.

Existing 2018 Without and With Project Conditions. All study area intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS under existing conditions and are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under Existing with Project Conditions.86 Additionally, there are no unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal for Existing with Project Conditions. Therefore, no improvements are required.

Opening Year (2020) Without and With Project Conditions. A conservative 2 percent per year growth rate was applied to the Project study area.87 All study area intersections under Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions would operate at satisfactory LOS and are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditions.88 Additionally, there are no study area intersections anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants for Opening Year (2020) Without and With Project Conditions in addition to those previously warranted for Existing with Project Conditions. Furthermore, a queuing analysis was conducted for the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street to determine if the left turn pocket storage is sufficient for all approaches and whether the current traffic signal phasing should be modified (currently permissive phasing). As demonstrated from the peak hour operations, the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing signal phasing.89 Therefore, no improvements are required.

86 Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 5-1. August 2018 (Appendix I). 87 According to SCAG, the City’s change in population from 2012 to 2040 equates to roughly a 0.32 percent growth rate compounded annually. Similarly, growth over the same 28-year period in households is projected to increase by 11.58 percent, or 0.39 percent annual growth rate. Finally, growth in employment over the same 28-year period is projected to increase by 37.22 percent, or a 1.14 percent annual growth rate. Therefore, implementing a 2 percent annual growth rate would likely overstate potential impacts identified in this analysis.
88 Ibid. Table 6-1.
89 Ibid. Table 6-2.

Page 1349 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-76
Year (2040) Without and With Project Conditions. As detailed above, a conservative 2 percent per year growth rate was applied to the Project study area. All study area intersections under Year (2040) Without Project Conditions would operate at satisfactory LOS and are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under Year (2040) With Project Conditions.90 Additionally, there are no study area intersections anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants for Year (2040) Without and With Project Conditions in addition to those previously warranted for Existing with Project Conditions. Furthermore, a queuing analysis was conducted for the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street to determine if the left turn pocket storage is sufficient for all approaches and whether the current traffic signal phasing should be modified (currently permissive phasing). As demonstrated from the peak hour operations, the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing signal phasing.91 Therefore, no improvements are required.

With implementation of the Proposed Project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS under all the scenarios specified above through the year 2040. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ No Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) establishes “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) criteria in lieu of LOS for analyzing transportation impacts and was signed into law as SB 743 in 2013. Regulatory changes to the CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved by the Office of Planning and Research on December 28, 2018. However, lead agencies have until July 1, 2020, which is the statewide implementation date, to opt-in use of the new VMT metric. The City has not yet developed a methodology for addressing potential VMT impacts. In cases where lead agencies use LOS for analyzing transportation impacts, they may continue to do so until July 1, 2020. As the City’s General Plan identifies intersection thresholds of significance in accordance with LOS, and because the City has not yet developed or approved a methodology for addressing potential VMT impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) does not apply to the proposed project. c) Substantially increase hazards to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the Project Site is proposed along 15th Street via a primary ingress/egress gate enhanced with streetscapes and an entry monument. A secondary access is proposed along the western end of the Project Site that will provide residential entry/exit and also facilitate entry/exit for emergency and public vehicles (e.g., trash service). Both access points are proposed to be gated, and all interior streets are proposed to be privately owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association. Development of 65 single-family residential units on site is compatible with existing single-family residential uses to the west, south, and east, and multifamily residential units

90 Ibid. Table 7-1.
91 Ibid. Page 62.

Page 1350 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

The Project would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City for new development with regard to public safety. As detailed in the Site-specific Fire Master Plan, the Project Site includes a primary ingress/egress gate and a secondary access along the western end of the Project Site. All driveway entryways and curves will include adequate turn radii for residents and emergency response vehicles. Additionally, the Project-specific TIA concluded all study area intersections have adequate left turn pocket storage for all approaches, and the current permissive traffic signal phasing is adequate (Appendix I).

The design of all roadways must provide adequate sight distance and traffic control measures. This provision is normally realized through roadway design to facilitate roadway traffic flows. Roadway improvements in and around the Project Site would be designed and constructed to satisfy all City requirements for street widths, corner radii, intersection control, and would incorporate design standards tailored to Site access requirements. Adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure the proposed development would not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections.

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in response to Checklist Question 3.3.9g, the Project would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City for new development with regard to public safety. Policy PFS-2.11 of the City’s General Plan requires new development to be accessible to emergency vehicles and not impede the ability of service providers to provide adequate emergency response.92 As detailed in the Site-specific Fire Master Plan, the Project Site includes a primary ingress/egress gate and a secondary access along the western end of the Project Site that will provide residential entry/exit and also facilitate entry/exit for emergency vehicles. All driveway entryways and curves will include adequate turn radii for residents and emergency response vehicles, and the Proposed Project will include a C10 fire alarm, a “Knox” key system at the perimeter gate, and an “Infrared Automatic Gate System” to ensure immediate fire department access to the Project Site in the event of an emergency in accordance with Policy PFS-2.11 (Emergency Vehicle Access) of the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, General Plan Policy PFS-2.10 requires new development, including the Proposed Project, to incorporate evacuation routes in Project design,93 which would be submitted to and approved by the SBCFD prior the issuance of building permits. Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure a less than significant impact related to provision of adequate emergency access. No mitigation is required.

92 Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services Element, City of Upland General Plan, Page PFS-3, City of Upland, September 2015. 93 Ibid.

Page 1351 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-78

3.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a Site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k).
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Signed into law in September 2004, and effective March 1, 2005, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) permits California Native American tribes recognized by the NAHC to hold conservation easements on terms mutually satisfactory to the tribe and the landowner. The term “California Native American tribe” is defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC.” The bill requires a City or County to consult with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects located prior to the adoption or amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan. This bill requires the planning agency to refer to the California Native American tribes specified by the NAHC and to provide them with opportunities for involvement.

Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill 52 or AB 52), requires Lead Agencies evaluate a Project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k); (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a Project’s Lead Agency (PRC §21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[a]).
“Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.

Per SB 18 and AB 52 (specifically California Public Resources Code 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by interested California Native American tribes that have previously requested that the City provide them with notice of such Projects. The City disseminated notices of the Proposed Project to interested California Native American tribes on August 23, 2018.

To date, only the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) has responded to the City’s notification request(s). In its August 28, 2018, response letter, the SMBMI stated the Proposed

Page 1352 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-79
Project area exists just within Serrano ancestral territory and is of interest to the Tribe. Due to the nature and location of the Proposed Project, the SMBMI requested the Site-specific cultural resources assessment and geotechnical report. These reports have been provided to the tribe for review. At this time consultation has concluded. Based on the consultation, the following mitigation has been identified.

TCR-1 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre-contact cultural resource discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on site.

TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Applicant and City for dissemination to the SMBMI. The City and/or Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.

Construction of the Project is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of any historical resource. It is possible that previously unknown buried archaeological resources could be identified during Project construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is proposed in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources (e.g., bottles, foundations, refuse dumps, or artifacts) are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities to require the contractor to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until the find can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) is listed in a local

Page 1353 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-80
register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k); (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a Project’s Lead Agency (PRC §21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[a]).

A resource may be listed as a historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria as defined in PRC §5024.1(C):

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A “substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
CEQA Guidelines do not preclude identification of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4], if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the Project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.18a, the City disseminated notices of the Proposed Project to interested California Native American tribes in August 2018.

Through consultation with interested tribe(s), Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 are proposed to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

As detailed in response to Checklist Questions 3.3.5a and 3.3.5b, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of any historical resource. However, it is possible that buried historical resources or archaeological resources could be identified during Project construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is proposed in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources (e.g., bottles, foundations, refuse dumps, or artifacts) are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities to require the contractor to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until the find can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, as well as CUL-1, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, and as considered significant to interested

Page 1354 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

3.3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in relocation or construction of
new or expanded water or wastewater treatment
facilities or storm water drainage, electrical,
natural gas, or telecommunication facilities the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated.

Water and Wastewater: The Proposed Project would result in approximately 0.018 mgd 94 of wastewater based on a sewer generation rate of 270 gallons per day (gpd)/per single-family dwelling unit.95 The Project would use approximately 0.11 percent 96 of the daily surplus capacity at RP-1. This is an incremental increase in demand for wastewater services. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Domestic water for the City and Project Site is provided by the City of Upland and San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo). The majority of the City’s water comes from Cucamonga, Six Basins, and Chino groundwater basins and imported surface water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD).97 The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) estimated the City’s water demand based on SCAG population data and General Plan land use designations at the time of the report.

The IEUA calculated the average gallons per capita per day (GPCD) consumption of water from all its retail member agencies, including the City of Upland and SAWCo, to be 160 GPCD.98 Therefore, with 189 additional residents, the Proposed Project would demand approximately 30,240 GPCD, or 0.093 acre-feet of water per day (33.95 acre-feet per year). According to the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City will have 21,694 acre-feet of water demand and 24,943 acre-feet of water supply in 2020 and 23,915 acre-feet of water demand and 25,083 acre-feet of water supply in 2035.99 Therefore, it is expected that the City will have a water surplus of 3,249 acre-feet in 2020 and 1,168 acre-feet in 2035. Accordingly, an additional 33.95 acre-feet of water demand per year anticipated by the Proposed Project would be met by the City and IEUA and its retail agencies (e.g., SAWCo).

Therefore, the Project would not result in the need to build new or expand existing water facilities.

For water and wastewater facilities, a less than significant impact would occur.

94 65 houses × 270 gpd per house = 17,550 gpd ÷ 1,000,000 = 0.018 mgd 95 Public Service & Utility Correspondence, City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR, Appendix H Table 1: General Plan Growth Above Existing Conditions. City of Upland, September 2012. 96 0.018 mgd demand ÷ 16.5 mgd surplus × 100 = 0.11 percent. 97 Section 5.15 Water Supply, City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR, City of Upland, September 2015. 98 2015 Final Urban Water Management Plan, Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Table 4-2: IEUA Regional Alliance GPCD Baseline and Targets (2010 Aggregate Approach). June 2016.
99 Ibid. Table 2-3: IEUA Total Water Demands by Retail Agency (AF) and Table 3-2: IEUA Retail Agencies’ Projected Water Supply (AF).

Page 1355 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-82
Storm Water Drainage: The Project is proposed on an existing flood control channel (15th Street Basin) that would be reconfigured adjacent to the east of the Project Site. There is an existing 84- inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain that conveys runoff to the northwest corner of 15th Street Basin. There is an existing 48-inch RCP storm drain located 280 feet east of the Project Site boundary that outlets to the 15th Street Basin. A concrete gutter located approximately 70 feet west of the Project Site conveys runoff to the 15th Street Basin. A 84” RCP storm drain is used to dewater the 15th Street Basin. This RCP storm drain inlet is located approximately 200 feet northwest of the Fernando Avenue and 15th Street intersection. On-site runoff from the Project Site will be collected and conveyed by a proposed on-site storm drain system to the reconfigured 15th Street Basin, as detailed in the Project-specific Drainage Plan (Appendix G1) and described below.

The reconfigured 15th Street Basin will measure approximately 1,056 feet long by 120 feet wide with an approximately 21-foot depth below grade at the western end and a 7-foot depth below grade at the eastern end. A section of the existing 84-inch RCP storm drain line will be removed and a proposed 12-foot by 8-foot round catch basin (RCB) storm drain will extend the remaining 84-inch RCP storm drain easterly along the southern boundary of the Project Site to outlet into the reconfigured 15th Street Basin. The on-site runoff will be collected by grated inlets within each lot and two curb inlets and conveyed to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB. A section of the existing RCP storm drain will be removed and replaced with a proposed 84” RCP storm drain along the southern boundary of the Project Site that will parallel the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain. The reconfigured 84” RCP storm drain will be used to dewater the reconfigured 15th Street Basin. A proposed 30-inch RCP storm drain line will convey runoff from an existing 48-inch RCP storm drain and flows from Drainage Area A. This proposed 30-inch RCP storm drain line will be constructed 260 feet east of the western Project Site boundary. The 30-inch RCP storm drain will connect to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain.

The existing basin would be retrofitted to accommodate a trapezoidal emergency spillway with a crest at an elevation of 1,426.6 feet amsl. The emergency spillway, having a base of 16 feet and a top width of 48.4 feet, would be installed at the end of Grove Avenue. Combined with the proposed box weir outlet system, potential impacts associated with Project development would be minimized.

The box weir outlet system would be designed to pass through the 200- to 500-year storm, with the emergency spillway providing discharge capacity for larger events. As the box weir outlet system can accommodate flows well in excess of the 100-year storm event, it is unlikely flows over the emergency spillway would occur during foreseeable storm events.

Development of the Project Site would reduce the overall area of the existing basin, but the proposed modifications to the remaining portion of the 15th Street Basin would provide the required storage volume by increasing the depth of the ponding. In the existing condition, the basin ponds to an elevation of 1,422.6 feet during a 100-year storm event. In the proposed condition, the basin would pond to an elevation of approximately 1,426 feet.100 This increased depth will provide 0.5 feet of freeboard between the emergency spillway crest and the 100-year water surface elevation. The emergency spillway shall be constructed for the 1,000-year event (1.35 × 100-year flow rate) in

100 15th Street Basin Modifications Review and Recommendations. Q3 Consulting. June 29, 2018, revised July 31, 2018 (Appendix G3).

Page 1356 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-83
accordance with San Bernardino County Detention Basin Design Criteria, with the required freeboard to the top of the dam embankment to be above the 1,000-year water surface elevation.

Using a 9-foot wide by 1.5-foot high opening, the maximum water surface elevation is projected to be 1,426.1 feet with a peak discharge of 246.7 cfs. This meets the peak discharge and maximum 100-year water surface elevation goals.

The approval of drainage features/improvements occurs through the building plan check process. As part of this process, all Project-related drainage features would be required to meet the City’s Public Works Division and RWQCB standards. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, the Applicant shall prepare a Final WQMP to ensure storm water runoff would be infiltrated on site at volumes that would not exceed the pre-development condition by more than 5 percent and any storm water overflow from all three on-site DAs would outlet to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain, which will discharge into the reconfigured 15th Street Basin described above, which has been designed to satisfy required storage capacities. The periodic maintenance of any required modular wetland units and infiltration basin and landscaped areas during Project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP would ensure impacts remain less than significant.

Other Utilities: All proposed electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be installed simultaneously with finish grading activities and required roadway frontage improvements for the Project site. As a result, interconnection to the existing utilities surrounding the site would not result in substantial disturbance of native habitat or soils, or existing roadways or utilities. There would be no significant environmental effects specifically related to the installation of utility interconnections that are not encompassed within the Project’s construction and operational footprint, and therefore already identified, disclosed, and subject to all applicable mitigation measures, as well as local, State, and federal regulations, as part of this Initial Study.

The demand for water, wastewater, storm drainage and utility capacity would not result in the development of off-site features or facilities that would cause or contribute to an environmental impact; therefore, no mitigation is required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple-dry
year?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the past drought conditions, the City’s water department implemented the “High” stage of the Water Conservation Ordinance, which requires a 36 percent reduction in water usage.101 The Project will be required to be consistent with the City’s water reduction requirements pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 13.16.050, Conservation program- High shortage stage. The Project will be required to install water-reducing or water-saving toilets, showerheads, and other features and drought-tolerant landscaping.

101 Ibid. IEUA 2015 Water use Efficiency Business Plan, Appendix F: Table 9: Retail Agency Emergency Regulation Mandatory Reduction %.

Page 1357 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-84
As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.19b, the Proposed Project would demand up to approximately 30,240 GPCD, or 0.093 acre-feet of water per day (33.95 acre-feet per year).

According to the 2015 UWMP, the City will have 21,694 acre-feet of water demand and 24,943 acre- feet of water supply in 2020 and 23,915 acre-feet of water demand and 25,083 acre-feet of water supply in 2035.102 Therefore, it is expected that the City will have a water surplus of 3,249 acre-feet in 2020 and 1,168 acre-feet in 2035. Accordingly, an additional 33.95 acre-feet of water demand per year anticipated by the Proposed Project would be met by the City and IEUA and its retail agencies (e.g., SAWCo). Through compliance with City Municipal Code Section 13.16.050, Conservation program-High shortage stage, the City has sufficient water supply to serve the Project from existing supplies and entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Project determined that it has adequate to serve
the Project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response to Checklist Question 3.3.19a. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
  ☒ 
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, solid waste in the City is transported primarily to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill in Rialto. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a daily permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day, a remaining capacity of 67,520,000 cubic yards, and has an estimated closure date of 2033.103 The Proposed Project would produce approximately 0.32 ton of solid waste a day.104 The daily volume of solid waste expected to be generated by the Proposed Project represents 0.004 percent of the current permitted throughput at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.105 As there is sufficient capacity, development of the Proposed Project would not significantly affect current operations or the expected lifetime of the landfills serving the project area. A less than significant impact would occur. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statues and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The City requires all development to adhere to all source reduction

102 Ibid. Table 2-3: IEUA Total Water Demands by Retail Agency (AF) and Table 3-2: IEUA Retail Agencies’ Projected Water Supply (AF). 103 Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). CalRecycle. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/ (accessed October 8, 2019). 104 Section 5.21 Solid Waste. City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR. September 2015. (3.4 lbs./resident/day × 189 residents = 642.6 lbs./day ÷ 2,000 lbs. = 0.32 ton/day.
105 0.32 ton/day ÷ 7,500 tons/day × 100 = 0.004 percent.

Page 1358 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-85
programs set forth in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for the disposal of solid waste, including yard waste.106 The Project would adhere to the SRRE and, like all development, also comply with all other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste disposal standards. Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.3.20 Wildfire
Would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The project site is surrounded entirely by urban uses and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone within a Local or State Responsibility Area;107 therefore, discussion of these issues is not relevant to the project site. Design and construction of the project in accordance with the 2016 CBC, which includes design features such as ignition-resistant materials and incorporation of fire sprinklers (as required) will reduce the risk of exposure of persons or property to fire hazards. No impact related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is required.

106 Section 5.21 Solid Waste, City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR, City of Upland, September 2015. 107 Figure SAF-3, Upland General Plan.

Page 1359 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-86

3.3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or
threatened plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No endangered or threatened species were identified on Site. As stated in response to the checklist questions outlined in Section 3.3.4 (Biological Resources) of this Initial Study, no special-status species were observed on the Project Site during a pedestrian survey conducted as part of the Biological Resources Assessment. Potential impacts to the burrowing owl and to migratory and nesting bird species would be mitigated to a less than significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Impacts to on-site biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measures.

Development of the Proposed Project would not result in the elimination of any identified archaeological or historical resource. It is possible that unknown buried historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources could be identified during Project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, GEO-1, as well as Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, have been identified to address potential impacts if subsurface historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources are encountered during construction operations. Adherence to these measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project has either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to all environmental issues pursuant to CEQA. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with the Proposed Project, the Project’s impacts are primarily Project-specific in nature.

As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.3a, the SCAQMD developed the operational

Page 1360 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-87
thresholds of significance based on the level above which a Project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions.

Project-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Without any exceedance in air quality emissions thresholds, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant air quality impacts.

Short-term construction-related noise impacts that would result from construction of the proposed mixed uses would remain less than significant with implementation of Standard Conditions N-1 and N-2 identified in this Initial Study. Standard Condition N-1 limits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays pursuant to Section 9.40.100(M) of the City’s Municipal Code. Standard Condition N-2 establishes best management practices for operation and staging of construction equipment in accordance with manufacturers’ standards and recommendations for noise attenuation.

Use of large mobile equipment such as a large bulldozer (greater than 80,000 pounds), loaded rucks, and jackhammers in proximity to sensitive receptor R5 would exceed the FTA threshold of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 during construction, vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receptors (receiver location R5) would be reduced to between 49 VdB and 78 VdB, reducing vibration-related impacts to less than significant levels.

As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.17a, all study area intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS under existing conditions and are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS without the Proposed Project under all the Project scenarios.

The Proposed Project may incrementally increase the demand for water and wastewater treatment and storage. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.19d, the Proposed Project would demand approximately 30,240 GPCD, or 0.093 acre-feet of water per day (33.95 acre-feet per year).

According to the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City will have 21,694 acre-feet of water demand and 24,943 acre-feet of water supply in 2020 and 23,915 acre-feet of water demand and 25,083 acre-feet of water supply in 2035. Therefore, it is expected that the City will have a water surplus of 3,249 acre- feet in 2020 and 1,168 acre-feet in 2035. Accordingly, an additional 33.95 acre-feet of water demand per year anticipated by the Proposed Project would be met by the City and IEUA and its retail agencies (e.g., SAWCo). As stated in response to Checklist Question 3.3.19a, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 17,550 gallons of wastewater per day, which is approximately

0.11 percent of the available daily surplus treatment capacity at RP-1. Therefore, the increased wastewater flows from the Proposed Project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of RP-1, would be typical of wastewater flows in the City, and would not contribute to an exceedance of the RP-1 treatment capacity.

As required for a development of this type, the Proposed Project is subject to interconnection fees imposed by the City in order to offset increased demand for water and wastewater treatment and storage. The City shall ensure provision of water and wastewater supplies and infrastructure to support existing development and future growth through maintenance and expansion, when necessary, through consultation with SAWCo and County agencies while minimizing environmental

Page 1361 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-88
impacts. Any future construction or expansion of water and/or wastewater facilities would require Project-level environmental review and Site-specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated.

Other development projects would mitigate their incremental impacts on the environment to the extent feasible. With the implementation of Project-specific mitigation, all of the Project’s impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels; therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the Project have environmental effects
which would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Tables 3.3.3e through 3.3.3f demonstrate that, with compliance with applicable regulatory policy designed to reduce emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-1, all Project construction-source and operational emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels.

Like all of Southern California, the Project Site could be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes. Adherence to the latest CBC standards, as amended, as well as implementation of Standard Condition G-1 (compliance with the current edition of the CBC and the recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation) would ensure potential Project-related geologic and soil conditions impacts remain less than significant.

Although potential drainage and water quality impacts could result from the Proposed Project, implementation of NPDES permits and the development/implementation of the Project-specific SWPPP and WQMP required in Mitigation Measures HYD-2 and HYD-3, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The Project’s drainage system, including the modification of the remaining portions of the basin, is designed to maintain current levels of drainage and flood control capacity. Potential impacts related to the modification of the Site’s existing drainage pattern have been reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project has the potential to expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards in the local General Plan and Noise Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 ensures large loaded trucks, mobile equipment greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds, and jackhammers shall not be used within 50 feet of the nearest sensitive receptor.

With implementation of Standard Conditions N-1 and N-2 and Mitigation Measure NOI-1, short- term construction and vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will remain less than significant.

The Proposed Project will contribute traffic to local roadways and intersections. The Project-specific TIA determined Project-related traffic on local roadways and intersections will be less than significant. Through implementation of Standard Conditions G-1, and Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, and NOI-1, Project-related environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant.

Page 1362 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

References Page 4-1

4.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet 2 of 2. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ Pages/SanBernardino.aspx (accessed July 23, 2018).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=upland+memorial+park (accessed June 14, 2018).
_____. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&Site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status= ACT,BKLG,COM,COLUR&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+ (CORTESE) (accessed June 14, 2018).

CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail (accessed on August 1, 2018).

City of Upland. General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Upland, September 2015.
_____. General Plan Housing Element, 2013–2021. Table 4-1: Upland Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2013-2021. Housing Element Adopted January 27, 2014. _____. City of Upland Climate Action Plan. September 2015. _____. City of Upland Final Program EIR, Section 5.16 Wastewater, Page 5.16-3. September 2015. _____. Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Map 3A, Compatibility Policy Map. 2014.

Frontier Communities. Villa Serena Specific Plan. June 2019.

GeoTek, Inc., Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for Proposed Single-Family Residential Development, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34, Upland Colonies 59, North of East 15th Street, Upland, San Bernardino County, California. Page 5. July 2018. _____. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, June 27, 2018. _____. Slope Stability Evaluation – New Basin, Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, San Bernardino County, California. September 16, 2019.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2015 Final Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.

Page 1363 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

References Page 4-2
Legislative Analyst’s Office. An Evaluation of the School Facility Fee Affordable Housing Assistance Programs. January 2001. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2001/011701_school_facility_fee.html (accessed October 4, 2018).

Madole & Associates, Inc. Drainage Study in the City of Upland for the 15th Street Basin. June 12, 2017.

National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8607H. Panel 8607H.

Revised August 28, 2008.

Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. Water Quality Management Plan for Tract Number 20245.

Form 4.3-2.

Q3 Consulting. 15th Street Basin Modifications Review and Recommendations. June 29, 2018, Revised July 31, 2018.
_____. 15th Street Basin Modifications – Spillway and Bypass Alternatives. September 10, 2019.

RCA Associates, Inc., General Biological Resources Assessment, Upland Colonies 59, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, updated August 30, 2018. _____. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment, July 13, 2018.

San Bernardino County. Inland Empire Utility Agency. Issuance of Waste Discharge and Producer/ User Reclamation Requirements for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s Regional Water Recycling Facilities, Surface Water Discharges and Recycled Water Use, Order No. R8-2009-0021, NPDES No. CA8000409, https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/Consolidated-NPDES-Permit-Order-No.-R8-2009-0021.pdf (accessed October 5, 2018).

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, February 2013.
_____. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2016.

Southern California Association of Governments. Final 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 11 in Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix.

Adopted April, 2016.
_____. Local Profiles Report 2017. Profile of the City of Upland. Page 3. May 2017.

State of California Department of Conservation Mineral Land Classification Map, Aggregate Resources Only, Claremont-Upland P-C Region. Ontario Quadrangle, Special Report 143 Plate

6.8. 1984.

Page 1364 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

References Page 4-3
State of California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed September 27, 2018).

State of California Mining and Geology Board. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, Department of Conservation Page 4. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/ guidelines/documents/classdesig.pdf (accessed July 30, 2018).

State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=upland+memorial+park (accessed June 14, 2018).

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (Accessed October 1, 2018).

Urban Crossroads. Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. August 2018. _____. Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Upland. August 2018. _____. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Page 33. July 20, 2018. _____. Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Upland, June 6, 2018. _____. Upland Colonies (Villa Serena) Traffic Impact Analysis Response to Comments, June 6, 2019.

Page 1365 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-1

5.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS

5.1 AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits and/or construction permits, the Applicant shall provide to the City verification that all off-road diesel construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP) to be used for the Project shall comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards during all construction phases. During construction, the City shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 A burrowing owl and nesting bird pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted within three days prior to ground-disturbing activities. The survey shall encompass the entire area of Project-related ground disturbance. If no active avian nests and no burrowing owls are found during the clearance survey, no additional mitigation will be required.

If a special-status species is located during the survey, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions are required. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre- construction clearance survey, construction activities shall be redirected around the nest(s).

As determined by the City Planning Division, a qualified biologist shall delineate the boundaries of any such buffer area. The buffer shall be sufficient to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. For listed and raptor species, this buffer may be expanded to up to 500 feet from the active nest at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City Planning Division and CDFW.

The biologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction if it occurs within an established avian buffer or if new nesting activity occurs and a new buffer is required.

Encroachment into buffers around active nests must be conducted only at the discretion of the biologist. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area may occur or resume at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City Planning Division and CDFW. Upon completion of construction monitoring, the biologist shall prepare a report of findings documenting the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting birds. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 In the event that pre-contact cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the of the find (within a 100-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior standards shall be hired to assess

Page 1366 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-2 the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resource Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, if any such find occurs and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment.

If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed in Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Standard Condition G-1: Prior to the approval of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that on-site structures, features, and facilities have been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction and the recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation. Geotechnical recommendations include, but are not limited to, remedial earthwork and/or ground improvement to provide a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath the structural footings/foundations, as well as proper surface drainage devices and erosion control. Verification testing must be performed upon completion of ground improvements to confirm that the compressible soils have been sufficiently densified. This condition shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the maximum depth of ground-disturbing activities shall be provided to the City. If ground disturbance in excess of 15 feet is required, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained. Upon review of Project materials, the qualified paleontologist shall identify those areas of the Site that require monitoring.

In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. A buffer area shall be established around the find within which construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. The buffer area parameters will be determined by the Project paleontologist in consultation with the City and Project proponent, but shall not be less than

Page 1367 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-3 100 feet. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. The paleontologist shall determine the need for paleontological construction monitoring in the vicinity of the find thereafter.

All paleontological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. At the paleontologist’s discretion, and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the paleontologist and the City to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) shall be considered the preferred treatment measure. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include the implementation of paleontological data recovery/salvage excavations to remove the resource from the Project Site along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis of the fossil specimens.

Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated for final repository. Any fossils collected shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school.

Following the completion of the above measures, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Project proponent to the City, the San Bernardino County Museum, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

5.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall file and obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in order to be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit for discharge of surface runoff associated with construction activities. Evidence that this NOI has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger’s Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. The NOI shall address the potential for an extended and discontinuous construction period based on funding availability. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City of Upland of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP

Page 1368 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-4 shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the entire demolition, grading, and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sediment and non-visible discharges from the Site. The SWPPP will include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the Site during demolition and construction phase to ensure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance. The SWPPP will be kept on site for the duration of Project demolition and construction and will be available to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for inspection at any time. Project BMPs may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
• Sediment discharges from the Site may be controlled by the following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles and temporary basins (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices. The construction and condition of the BMPs will be periodically inspected during construction and repairs will be made when necessary as required by the SWPPP.
• Materials that have the potential to contribute to non-visible pollutants to storm water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be contained, elevated, and placed in temporary storage containment areas.
• All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be protected in a reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge from the Site. Stockpiles will be surrounded by silt fences and covered with plastic tarps. • In addition, the construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the SWPPP. Weekly inspections shall be performed on sandbag barriers and other sediment control measures called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports and inspection logs shall be maintained by the contractor and reviewed by the City of Upland and the representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board. In the event that it is not feasible to implement specific BMPs, the City of Upland can make a determination that other BMPs will provide equivalent or superior treatment either on or off Site.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

HYD-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City of Upland for review and approval. Prior to grading permit approval, the Project shall provide evidence that the Project design features identified in the Final WQMP have been fully incorporated into the Project plans. In accordance with the Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans prepared for the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number CAS618036, Order Number R8-2010- 0036, the Final WQMP shall confirm performance standard calculations for each of the Project Site’s drainage areas. Specifically, the Final WQMP shall detail low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) designed to retain the Project Site’s minimum storm water treatment capacity and design capture volume to ensure post-

Page 1369 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-5 development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration for the 2-year frequency storm shall not exceed that of the pre-development condition by more than five percent.

The proposed LID BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading and development plans submitted to the City for review and approval. Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs, including landscaped areas, during Project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

5.6 NOISE
Standard Condition N-1: Construction activities occurring as part of the Project shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of Section 9.40.100(M) of the City Municipal Code, which states that construction activities may occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. No construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Saturdays, Sundays, and City holidays except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days while the emergency continues, and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he or she shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he or she may grant permission for such work to be done between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. This standard shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

Standard Condition N-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall incorporate the following standards as notes on the grading plan cover sheet to minimize construction noise:
• Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of large mobile equipment (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) which are capable of a minimum 5 A-weighted decibels (dBA) noise reduction. The dampening materials must be capable of the minimum 5 dBA noise reduction and can be made of commercially-available sound dampening materials, including but not limited to polyurethane foam and vinyl sheeting.
• Project construction activities shall comply with the City of Upland Municipal Code requirements.

Page 1370 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Page 5-6 • Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project Site during all Project construction (i.e., to the northern center). • The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.

This standard shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that large loaded trucks, mobile equipment greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds, and jackhammers shall not be used within 50 feet of receiver location R5 (the existing residential outdoor living areas adjacent to the western Project Site boundaries) if occupied at the time of Project construction. During construction activities, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

5.7 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre-contact cultural resource discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

Page 1371 of 3744 ends

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
Appendices
APPENDIX A:

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 1372 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF UPLAND

PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]
(949) 336-5987

Alyssa Tamase
[email protected]
(949) 336-5988

AUGUST 1, 2018

11823-03 AQ Report

Page 1373 of 3744 ends

Page 1374 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... I APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................. I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 Construction-Source Emissions ............................................................................................................... 1 Operational-Source Emissions ................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) ......................... 3

1.4 Construction-Source Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 6

1.5 Operational-Source Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 6 2 AIR QUALITY SETTING ................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 South Coast Air Basin .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Regional Climate ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Wind Patterns and Project Location ........................................................................................... 10

2.4 Existing Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.5 Regional Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 13

2.6 Local Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.7 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................... 18

2.8 Existing Project Site Air Quality Conditions ................................................................................ 20 3 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ................................................................................................ 22

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 22

3.2 Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................ 22

3.3 Project-Related Sources of Potential Impact .............................................................................. 23

3.4 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 26

3.6 Localized Significance - Construction Activity ............................................................................. 28

3.7 Localized Significance – Long-Term Operational Activity ........................................................... 32

3.8 CO “Hot Spot” Analysis ............................................................................................................... 33

3.9 Air Quality Management Planning .............................................................................................. 35

3.10 Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................... 37

3.11 Odors ........................................................................................................................................... 37

3.12 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 37 4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 39 5 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 41

Page 1375 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
i

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2.1: STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION (UNMITIGATED) EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.2: CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION (MITIGATED) EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUT APPENDIX 3.3: CALEEMOD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUT

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT 3-A: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS................................................................................................. 31

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................. 2 TABLE 2-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2).................................................................... 11 TABLE 2-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2).................................................................... 12 TABLE 2-2: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB) 13 TABLE 2-3: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2014-2016.................................... 14 TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (1 OF 2) ........................................................ 22 TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (2 OF 2) ........................................................ 23 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION DURATION ............................................................................................. 24 TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 25 TABLE 3-4: EMISSIONS SUMMARY OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION (WITHOUT MITIGATION) ................. 26 TABLE 3-5: EMISSIONS SUMMARY OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION (WITH MITIGATION) ....................... 26 TABLE 3-6: MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY ................................................. 28 TABLE 3-7: MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED-ACREAGE .......................................................................... 30 TABLE 3-8: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION (UNMITIGATED)............................ 32 TABLE 3-9: CO MODEL RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 33 TABLE 3-10: TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED IN AQMP ...................................... 34 TABLE 3-11: PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 35

Page 1376 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
µg/m3 Microgram per Cubic Meter
AADT Annual Average Daily Trips
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BACM Best Available Control Measures
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
LST Localized Significance Threshold
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
Pb Lead
PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less
PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PPM Parts Per Million
Project Upland Colonies
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIPs State Implementation Plans
SRA Source Receptor Area
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis

Page 1377 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
iii
TOG Total Organic Gases
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VPH Vehicles Per Hour

Page 1378 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
iv
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1379 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE EMISSIONS

REGIONAL IMPACTS
For regional emissions, the Project has the potential to exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). Mitigation measure MM AQ-1 is recommended to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. After implementation of the applicable MM, construction activity emissions will not exceed the numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutants. Thus, a less than significant impact will occur.

LOCALIZED IMPACTS
For localized emissions, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required .

Project construction-source emissions would not conflict with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

Odors
Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from construction activities. Moreover, construction -source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered less-than-significant.

OPERATIONAL-SOURCE EMISSIONS

REGIONAL IMPACTS
For regional emissions, the Project net increase from the existing use would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus a less than significant impact would occur for Project-related operational-source emissions and no new impacts would occur.

LOCALIZED IMPACTS
Project operational-source emissions would not result in or cause a significant localized air quality impact as discussed in the operational LSTs section of this report. The proposed Project would not result in a significant CO “hotspot” as a result of Project related traffic during ongoing operations.

Project operational-source emissions would not conflict with the applicable AQMP.

Page 1380 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
2 ODORS
Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills or various heavy industrial uses. The Project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous residential refuse. Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances (1). Consistent with County requirements, all Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Potential operational-source odor impacts are therefore considered less-than-significant.

The results of this Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis are summarized in Table ES-1 below:

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Regional Construction
Emissions 3.4 Less Than Significant n/a
Regional Operational
Emissions 3.5 Less Than Significant n/a
Localized Construction
Emissions 3.6 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Localized Operational
Emissions 3.7 Less Than Significant n/a
CO “Hot Spot” Analysis 3.8 Less Than Significant n/a
Air Quality Management Plan 3.9 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Sensitive Receptors 3.10 Less Than Significant n/a
Odors 3.11 Less Than Significant n/a
Cumulative Impacts 3.12 Less Than Significant n/a

Page 1381 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the air quality impact analysis (AQIA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for Upland Colonies (referred to as “Project”).

The purpose of this AQIA is to evaluate the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project and recommend measures to mitigate impacts considered potentially significant in comparison to established air district thresholds.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Upland Colonies site is located on the north side of 15th Street in the City of Upland as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is currently vacant. Land uses surrounding the Project site include a golf course to the north and residential homes to the south , west, and east. The Interstate 210 (I-210) freeway right-of-way is located roughly 1 mile north of the Project site.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Consistent with the Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project is assumed to be developed within a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2020 (2). Exhibit 1-B identifies the preliminary site plan. The Project is to include the development of 66 single family detached residential dwelling units.

1.3 STANDARD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS/BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (BACMS) Measures listed below (or equivalent language) shall appear on all Project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits.

SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3); Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel) (4); Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (5); and Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers) (6). It should be noted that BACMs are not mitigation as they are standard regulatory requirements.

BACM AQ-1
All applicable measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403, which include but are not limited to (7):
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

Page 1382 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Page 1383 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

Page 1384 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
6 BACM AQ-2
The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1113 (8):
• Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 shall be used.

1.4 CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM AQ-1
For construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards during all construction phases and will ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specific ations.

1.5 OPERATIONAL-SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES
Project operational-source emissions will be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Page 1385 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
7 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1386 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
8 2 AIR QUALITY SETTING
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions in the Project area and region.

2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD (9). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As discussed above, the Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The larger South Coast district boundary includes 10,743 square miles.

The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bound by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.

2.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the Basin. In addition, t he temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the Basin vary from the low to middle 60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the Basin shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the Basin, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the Basin have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.

Although the climate of the Basin can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of s ea air is an important modifier of Basin climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the Basin, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfates is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the Basin is 71 percent along the coast and 59 percent inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

Page 1387 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
9 More than 90 percent of the Basin’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the Basin with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the Basin. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the Basin is subjected to wind flows associated with the trave ling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical sm og concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the Basin is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

In the Basin, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high -pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire Basin. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions.

These inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshor e flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NOx and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

Page 1388 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
10 2.3 WIND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad val leys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

2.4 EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated and in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect, as well health effects of each pollutant regulated under these standards are shown in Table 2-1 (10) (11).

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standar ds presented in Table 2-1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the state if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the federal standards (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight -hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

Page 1389 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
11 TABLE 2-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2)

Page 1390 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
12 TABLE 2-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2)

Page 1391 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
13 2.5 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 38 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single-pollutant source Lead (Pb) air monitoring sites throughout the air district (12). In 2015, the federal and state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations (13). No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or state standards for NO2, SO2, CO, sulfates or lead. See Table 2-2, for attainment designations for the SCAB (14) (15). Appendix 2.1 provides geographic representation of the state and federal attainment status for applicable criteria pollutants within the SCAB.

TABLE 2-2: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB) Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone - 1hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment (“extreme”) Ozone - 8 hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment (“extreme”) PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment (“serious”)
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead1 Attainment Nonattainment (Partial)
Source: State/Federal designations were taken from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Note: See Appendix 2.1 for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the South Coast Air Basin

2.6 LOCAL AIR QUALITY
Relative to the Project site, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Inhalable Particulates (PM10) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District Northwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station, located approximately 0.90 miles south of the Project site in Upland (SRA 32). Relative to the Project site, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District Southwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station, located approximately 5.5 miles south of the Project site in Fontana (SRA 33). It should be noted that the San Bernardino Valley monitoring station was utilized in lieu of the Northwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station only in instances where data was not available from the Northwest San Bernardino Valley site.

The most recent three (3) years of data available is shown on Table 2-3, and identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded for the study area, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site (16). Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the South Coast Air Basin and few monitoring

1 The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB.

Page 1392 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
14 stations measure SO2 concentrations. It should be noted that the table below is provided for informational purposes.

TABLE 2-3: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2014-2016

POLLUTANT STANDARD YEAR
2014 2015 2016
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.126 0.136 0.156
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.101 0.106 0.116
Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 34 49 53 Number of Days Exceeding State 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 60 53 89 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 57 66 65 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 3.0 2.1 1.7
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.2 1.3 1.3
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.074 0.072 0.070
Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration (ppm) 0.017 0.015 0.017 Particulate Matter ≤ 10 Microns (PM10)
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 80 77 72
Number of Samples 356 336 363
Number of Samples Exceeding State Standard > 50 µg/m3 9 12 5 Number of Samples Exceeding Federal Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 78.9 47.3 30.45
Annual Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 13.2 10.7 12.04
Number of Samples Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 1 2 0 -- = data not available from SCAQMD or ARB
Source: SCAQMD’s Air Quality Data Tables and ARB’s iADAM Top 4 Summary Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Criteria pollutants , their typical sources, and effects are identified below:
• Carbon Monoxide (CO): Is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections.

Page 1393 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
15 • Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). • Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOx): Nitrogen oxides (NOx) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (O2). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors. • Ozone (O3): Is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. • PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant.
• PM2.5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns): A similar air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles).

These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOX release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources.

The chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Volatile organic compounds are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably.
• Reactive Organic Gases (ROG): Similar to VOC, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are also precursors in forming ozone and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the

Page 1394 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
16 presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC (see previous) interchangeably. • Lead (Pb): Lead is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of the SCAQMD’s regular air monitoring stations since 1982. Currently, emissions of lead are largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters. It should be noted that the Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Lead is a criteria air pollutant.

Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Ozone
Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub - groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. An increased risk for asthma ha s been found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in communities with high ozone levels.

Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the responses described above. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that includes ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes.

Carbon Monoxide
Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain wit h exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of decreased oxygen supply to the heart. Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include fetuses, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen at high altitudes.

Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers.

Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels; these include pre-term births and heart abnormalities.

Page 1395 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
17 Particulate Matter
A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the world. In recent years, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer.

Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long term exposure to particulate matter.

The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5.

Nitrogen Dioxide
Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposure to NO2 at levels found in homes with gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels found in Southern California. Increase in resistance to air flow and airway contraction is observed after short -term exposure to NO2 in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub -groups.

In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO2.

Sulfur Dioxide
A few minutes of exposure to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SO2. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2.

Animal studies suggest that despite SO2 being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract.

Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to

Page 1396 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
18 separate the effects of SO2 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor.

Lead
Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure.

Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death; although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast -fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers.

Odors
The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Merely identifying the hundreds of VOCs that cause odors poses a big challenge. Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance, by compromising the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress.

2.7 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.7.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O3, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (17). The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (18). The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment

Page 1397 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
19 and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 2-1 (previously presented) provides the NAAQS within the basin.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). NOx is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

2.7.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. The California CAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. However at this time, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (19) (17).

Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from commercial and light industrial facilities. All basins have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

Non-attainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development); • A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a five percent or more annual reduction in emissions or 15 percent or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOx, CO and PM10. However, air basins may

Page 1398 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
20 use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than five percent per year under certain circumstances.

2.7.3 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In regards to the NAAQS, the Project region within the SCAB is in nonattainment for ozone (8-hour) and PM2.5. For the CAAQS, the Project region within the SCAB is in nonattainment for ozone (1-hour and 8-hour), PM10, and PM2.5. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (20). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and Project consistency with the AQMP is provided in Section 3.9.

2.8 EXISTING PROJECT SITE AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
Existing air quality conditions at the Project site would generally reflect ambient monitored conditions as presented previously at Table 2-3.

Page 1399 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
21 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1400 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
22 3 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it will violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the Project has been evaluated to determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following section.

3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project -related air quality impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the St ate CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (21):
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

The SCAQMD has also developed regional and localized significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 3-1 (22). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (1 OF 2)
Pollutant Construction Operations
Regional Thresholds
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day

Page 1401 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
23 TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (2 OF 2) Pollutant Construction Operations
Localized Thresholds
NOx
220 lbs/day (site preparation)
N/A
187 lbs/day (grading)
CO
1,713 lbs/day (site preparation)
N/A
1,392 lbs/day (grading)
PM10
11 lbs/day (site preparation)
N/A
8 lbs/day (grading)
PM2.5
7 lbs/day (site preparation)
N/A
6 lb/day (grading)

3.3 PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
Land uses such as the Project affect air quality through construction -source and operational- source emissions.

On October 17, 2017, the SCAQMD in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod™) v2016.3.2. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and CO) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (23). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod™ has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Appendix 3.1 to 3.3.

3.4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Construction is expected to commence in January 2019 and will last through February 2020.

Construction duration by phase is shown on Table 3 -2. The construction schedule utilized in the

Page 1402 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
24 analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.2 The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction. The duration of cons truction activity was based on a 2020 opening year and CalEEMod defaults. The associated construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod 2016.3.2 defaults. Please refer to specific detailed modeling inputs/outputs contained in Appendix 3.1 of this analysis. A detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided at Table 3-3.

Dust is typically a major concern during rough grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). The CalEEMod model was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. According to information provided by the client, the Project site is expected to require an estimated 40,000 cubic yards of import.

Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project site) were estimated based on information from the applicant and the CalEEMod model.

TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Phase Name Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 01/01/2019 01/14/2019 10
Grading 01/15/2019 02/11/2019 20
Building Construction 02/12/2019 12/30/2019 230
Paving 12/31/2019 01/27/2020 20
Architectural Coating 01/28/2020 02/24/2020 20

2 As shown in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2, Section 4.3 “OFFROAD Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Page 1403 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
25 TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Pavers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8

3.4.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3); Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel) (4); Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (5); and Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers) (6). It should be noted that Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) are not mitigation as they are standard regulatory requirements. Notwithstanding, credit for Rule 403 and Rule 1113 have been taken as BACM AQ- 1 and BACM AQ-2, respectively.

Impacts without Mitigation
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 3-4. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction has the potential to exceed numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of NOx.

Page 1404 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
26 TABLE 3-4: EMISSIONS SUMMARY OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION (WITHOUT MITIGATION) Year Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2019 5.94 111.75 28.68 0.24 11.04 6.75
2020 49.91 14.12 15.21 0.02 0.92 0.74
Maximum Daily Emissions 49.91 111.75 28.68 0.24 11.04 6.75 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO NO
Impacts with Mitigation
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions with mitigation are summarized on Table 3-5. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2. MM AQ-1 is recommended to reduce the severity of the impacts. After implementation of MM AQ-1, Project construction-source emissions will be less than significant.

TABLE 3-5: EMISSIONS SUMMARY OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION (WITH MITIGATION) Year
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO3 SOx PM10 PM2.5
2018 2.91 87.30 36.05 0.24 9.10 5.04
2019 49.91 14.12 15.21 0.02 0.92 0.74
Maximum Daily Emissions 49.91 87.30 36.05 0.24 9.10 5.04 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

3.5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions

3.5.1 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
Architectural Coatings
Over a period of time the buildings that are part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other

3 After implementation of Tier 3 mitigation, CO emissions increase due to CalEEMod calculations.

Page 1405 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
27 surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated using the CalEEMod model.

Consumer Products
Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain or ganic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The emissions associated with use of consumer products were calculated based on defaults provided within the CalEEMod model.

Hearths/Fireplaces
The emissions associated with use of hearths/fireplaces were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CalEEMod model. The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplace s in new development. In order to account for the requirements of this Rule, the unmitigated CalEEMod model estimates were adjusted to remove wood burning stoves and fireplaces. As the project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, the removal of wood burning stoves and fireplaces is not considered "mitigation" although it must be identified as such in CalEEMod in order to treat the case appropriately.

Landscape Maintenance Equipment
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CalEEMod model.

3.5.2 ENERGY SOURCE EMISSIONS
Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using the CalEEMod model.

3.5.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
Vehicles
Project mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Project. The Project-related operational air quality impacts are derived

Page 1406 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
28 primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the report, Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2018) were utilized in this analysis (2). The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 623 trip-ends per day with 50 AM peak hour trips and 65 PM peak hour trips.

Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel
Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of tire wear particulates. The emissions estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using the CalEEMod model.

3.5.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Operational-source emissions are summarized on Table 3-6. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.3. As indicated, the Project would not exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant.

TABLE 3-6: MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 3.70 1.16 5.93 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Source 0.06 0.51 0.22 3.25E-03 0.04 0.05
Mobile 1.55 9.73 18.66 0.07 4.64 1.28
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.31 11.40 24.80 0.08 4.80 1.44 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 3.70 1.16 5.93 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Source 0.06 0.51 0.22 3.25E-03 0.04 0.05
Mobile 1.36 9.79 16.35 0.06 4.64 1.28
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.12 11.46 22.50 0.07 4.80 1.44 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

3.6 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

BACKGROUND ON LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD (LST) DEVELOPMENT The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology) (19). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs).

Page 1407 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
29 The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of any given project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and NO 2, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PM10 and PM2.5; both of which are non-attainment pollutants.

The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

LSTs were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (24).

EMISSIONS CONSIDERED
SCAQMD’s Methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should NOT be included in the emissions compared to LSTs (25).” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered.

APPLICABILITY OF LSTS FOR THE PROJECT
This project is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 32, Northwest San Bernardino Valley. For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST is the Northwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station (SRA 32). LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SCAQMD produced look- up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size.

In order to determine the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of Project-related construction, the following process is undertaken:
• The CalEEMod model is utilized to determine the maximum daily on-site emissions that will occur during construction activity.
• The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds (26) is used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod. • If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to five acres per day, then the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized to determine if a Project has the potential to result in a significant impact (the SCAQMD recommends that Projects exceeding the screening look-up

Page 1408 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
30 tables undergo dispersion modeling to determine actual impacts). The look-up tables establish a maximum daily emissions threshold in pounds per day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs.

MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED-ACREAGE
Table 3-7 is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed -acreage for purposes of modeling localized emissions. As shown, the proposed Project could actively disturb approximately 3.5 acres per day during the site preparation, and 2.5 acres per day during the grading phase of construction.

TABLE 3-7: MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED-ACREAGE
Construction Phase Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Acres graded
per 8-hour day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres graded
per day
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 4 0.5 8 2.0
Graders 0 0.5 8 0
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total acres disturbed per day during Site Preparation 3.5 Construction Phase Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Acres graded
per 8-hour day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres graded
per day
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total acres disturbed per day during Grading 2.5
Sensitive Receptors
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as “sensitive receptors”. Sensitive receivers near the Project site include existing single-family residential homes to the north, south, east, and west of the Project site, as described below and as shown on Exhibit 3-A.

R1: Located approximately 158 feet north of the Project site, R1 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) across an existing golf course from the Project site.

R2: Located approximately 48 feet south of the Project site, R2 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) of homes on 15th Street.

Page 1409 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
31 EXHIBIT 3-A: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Page 1410 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
32 R3: Located approximately 83 feet south of the Project site, R3 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.

R4: Located approximately 86 feet south of the Project site, R4 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.

R5: Located approximately 10 feet west of the Project site, R5 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) adjacent to the western Project site boundaries.

The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residential homes approximately 10 feet/3.05 meters west of the Project site. Notwithstanding, the Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for recept ors located at 25 meters (27).” Accordingly, LSTs for receptors at 25 meters are utilized in this analysis and provide for a conservative i.e. “health protective” standard of care.

CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE EMISSIONS LST ANALYSIS
Since the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to five acres per day for both the site preparation phase and the grading phase, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining impacts. As previously noted, a 25-meter receptor distance is utilized to determine the LSTs for emissions of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.

Impacts without Mitigation
Table 3-8 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Without mitigation, emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Appendix 3.1.

TABLE 3-8: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION (UNMITIGATED) On-Site Site Preparation Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 68.11 23.14 10.84 6.69
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
On-Site Grading Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 45.25 17.10 5.10 3.08
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,392 8 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

3.7 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE – LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 66 single family residential dwelling units on 9.16 acres. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the

Page 1411 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
33 operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed.

3.8 CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific carbon monoxide (CO) “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion.

An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO (28).

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and effici ent emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment, as previously noted in Table 2-2. Also, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined, as indicated by historical emissions data presented previously at Table 2-3.

To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 3-9.

TABLE 3-9: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire-Veteran 4.6 3.5 4.2
Sunset-Highland 4 4.5 3.9
La Cienega-Century 3.7 3.1 5.8
Long Beach-Imperial 3 3.1 9.3
Source: 2003 AQMP
Notes: ppm: parts per million. Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 9.3 ppm 8-hr CO concentration

Page 1412 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
34 measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 8.6 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (28). In contrast, the ambient 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated at 1.4 ppm—1.6 ppm (please refer to previous Table 2-3). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour— or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (2).

Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis, shown on Table 3-

10. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4=

18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1 -hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).4 At buildout of the Project, the highest average daily trips on a segment of road would be 29,815 daily trips on east Alta Avenue and foothill Boulevard which is lower than the highest daily traffic volumes generated at the busiest intersection in the CO “hot spot” analysis (2).

TABLE 3-10: TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED IN AQMP Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire-Veteran 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset-Highland 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega-Century 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach-Imperial 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 Source: 2003 AQMP
Notes: vph-vehicles per hour
The proposed Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study, or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations, as shown on Table 3-11. Therefore, CO

4 Based on the ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm).

Page 1413 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
35 “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

TABLE 3-11: PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Campus Av./14th St. 493/886 838/772 187/249 339/244 1,857/2,151 Alta Av./14th St. 79/67 81/42 155/203 103/110 417/422
Alta Av./Foothill Bl. (SR-66) 23/42 192/207 697/1,499 880/939 1,792/2,686 Grove Av./Foothill Bl. (SR-66) 403/578 167/317 583/1,423 925/937 2,078/3,255

3.9 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square -mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin.

In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

In March 2017, the AQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (29). Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 RTP/SCS and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories (30). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 201 6 AQMP as discussed below.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) (31). These indicators are discussed below:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the

Page 1414 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
36 timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Construction Impacts
The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localized significance thresholds (LSTs) or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. The Project would not exceed the applicable LST thresholds or regional significance thresholds for construction activity after the implementation of MM AQ-1.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.

Operational Impacts
The Project would not exceed the applicable LST thresholds or regional significance thresholds for operational activity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is consistent with the first criterio n. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase.

Overview
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from lo cal general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Upland General Plan (referred to as the “General Plan”) is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Construction Impacts
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independen t of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities.

Operational Impacts
The General Plan currently designates the Project site as Public Utilities – Flood Control (PU-FC).

As per the City’s General Plan, the PU land use designation provides areas for landfills, flood control/recharge facilities, and public utilities including gas, electricity, and water (32). As indicated, the proposed Project will consist of 66 single family residential dwelling units which would likely exceed the growth intensities allowed within the General Plan. As such, the Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP.

Page 1415 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
37 AQMP Consistency Conclusion
The Project would have the potential to cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The Project would be inconsistent with the current general plan and zoning designation. As such, the Project has the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to the AQMP.

3.10 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors.

Results of the LST analysis indicate that, with application of mitigation, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Further Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS – PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a carcinogen, However, the DPM emissions would be short-term in nature. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 70-year exposure time. As such, considering the short time frame for construction, exposure to DPM during construction is anticipated to be less than significant.

3.11 ODORS
Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills or various heavy industrial uses. The Project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Pro ject would include disposal of miscellaneous commercial refuse. Consistent with County requirements, all Project- generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations, thereby precluding substantial generation of odors due to temporary holding of refuse on-site. Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances (33).

3.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Federal standards designated the Project area as an extreme non‐attainment area for ozone, attainment for PM10, and non-attainment for PM2.5, and lead. State standards designated the Project area as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, PM2.5 and attainment for lead.

Page 1416 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
38 The AQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (34). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project - specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project -related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for projec t-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Construction Impacts
Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria pollutant after implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact with respect to construction activity.

Operational Impacts
Project operational‐source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact with respect to operational activity.

Page 1417 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
39 4 REFERENCES

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 402. Nuisance. [Online] May 7, 1976. [Cited:

September 17, 2013.] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 402.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

2. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis. 2018.

3. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1113.pdf .

4. —. RULE 431.2. Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/siprules/sr431-

2.pdf.

5. —. RULE 403. Fugitive Dust. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r403.pdf .

6. —. RULE 1186. PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1186.pdf .

7. —. RULE 403. Fugitive Dust. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule- iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

8. —. Draft Staff Report: Proposed Amended Rules 1113- Architectural Coatings. [Online] November 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/architectural-coatings/current- activities-support-documents/2015_11_dsr_par1113.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

9. —. Southern California Air Basins. [Online] [Cited: November 13, 2013.] http://www.aqmd.gov/map/mapaqmd1.pdf .

10. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. [Cited: November 13, 2013.] http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html .

11. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited:

November 13, 2013.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm .

12. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. [Online] July 2016. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring- network-plan/annual-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan-v2.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

13. Environmental Protection Agency. Monitor Values Report. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/outdoor- air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.

14. Air Resources Board. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. [Online] 2013. [Cited: September 17, 2014.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm .

15. South Coast Air Quality Management District. National Ambient Air Qualirt Standards (NAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin.

AQMD. [Online] February 2016. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

16. —. RULE 403. Fugitive Dust. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r403.pdf .

17. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). [Online] 2013. [Cited: April 6, 2015.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf .

18. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] [Cited: September 17, 2014.] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ .

19. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited:

September 17, 2014.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm .

Page 1418 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
40 20. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] 2012. [Cited: September 17, 2014.] http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality- mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan.

21. Professionals, Association of Environmental. 2016 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. [Online]
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf .

22. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air- quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

23. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] September 2016. www.caleemod.com .

24. Lake Environmental. US EPA Models. Lake Environmental. [Online] http://www.weblakes.com/download/us_epa.html .

25. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. :

South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

26. —. Fact Sheet fo Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.

27. —. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

28. —. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/aqmd03aqmp.htm .

29. —. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air- quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.

30. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf .

31. South coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). [Online] 1993. [Cited: November 13, 2013.] http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/oldhdbk.html .

32. City of Upland. City of Upland General Plan. 2015.

33. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 402. Nuisance. [Online] May 7, 1976. [Cited:

November 13, 2013.] http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r402.pdf .

34. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf .

Page 1419 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
41 5 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this air study report represent an accurate depiction of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Upland Colonies Project. The information contained in this air quality impact assessment report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5987.

Haseeb Qureshi
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
260 E. Baker St., Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 336-5987
[email protected]

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

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

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June, 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April, 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – California Air Resources Board • August, 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November, 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June, 2006

Page 1420 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
42 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1421 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
APPENDIX 2.1:

STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

Page 1422 of 3744 ends

Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-3
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Status - South Coast Air Basin Criteria
Pollutant Averaging Time Designationa Attainment
Dateb
Ozone (O3)
(1979) 1-Hour (0.12 ppm)c Nonattainment (“extreme”) 2/26/2023 (revised deadline)
(2015) 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Pending – Expect Nonattainment (“extreme”) Pending (beyond 2032)
(2008) 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (“extreme”) 7/20/2032 (1997) 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (“extreme”) 6/15/2024 PM2.5e
(2006) 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Nonattainment (“serious”) 12/31/2019 (2012) Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment (“moderate”) 12/31/2021 (1997) Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Attainment (final determination pending) 4/5/2015 (attained 2013)
PM10f (1987) 24-hour (150 µg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance) 7/26/2013 (attained) Lead (Pb)g (2008) 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Nonattainment (Partial)
(Attainment determination to be requested) 12/31/2015
CO (1971) 1-Hour (35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) (1971) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) NO2h (2010) 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) SO2i
(2010) 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending
(expect Unclassifiable/Attainment) N/A (attained)
(1971) 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
(1971) Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained) a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for an attainment demonstration
c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05 ; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard; original attainment date was 11/15/2010; the revised attainment date is 2/6/23 d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained e) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; U.S.EPA approved reclassification to “serious,” effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/2019; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/15, effective 4/15/15; on July 25, 2016 U.S. EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016 f) The annual PM10 NAAQS was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; the Basin’s Attainment Re- designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was approved by U.S. EPA on 6/26/13, effective 7/26/13 g) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of the Basin only for near-source monitors; expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re-designation request pending h) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10, with attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained i) The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS; final area designations expected by 12/31/20 due to new source-specific monitoring requirements; Basin expected to be in attainment due to ongoing clean data 2-8 Page 1423 of 3744

Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-4
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Status Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin
Criteria
Pollutant Averaging Time Designationa Attainment
Dateb
Ozone (O3)
(1979) 1-Hour (0.12 ppm)c Attainment 11/15/2007
(attained 12/31/2013)
(2015) 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Pending – Expect
Nonattainment (Severe) Pending
(2008) 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 7/20/2027 (1997) 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 6/15/2019 PM2.5e
(2006) 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (2012) Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1997) Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) PM10f (1987) 24-hour (150 µg/m3) Nonattainment (“serious”) 12/31/2006 Lead (Pb) (2008) 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/
Attainment
CO (1971) 1-Hour (35 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) NO2g (2010) 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) Annual (0.053 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) SO2h
(2010) 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending N/A
(1971) 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
(1971) Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/ Attainment
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for an attainment demonstration
c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05; the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area, including the Coachella Valley, had not timely attained this standard by the 11/15/07 “severe-17” deadline, based on 2005-2007 data; on 8/25/14, U.S. EPA proposed a clean data finding based on 2011–2013 data and a determination of attainment for the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area; this rule was finalized by U.S. EPA on 4/15/15, effective 5/15/15, that included preliminary 2014 data
d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained e) The annual PM2.5 standard was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3 f) The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment deadline was 12/31/2006; the Coachella Valley Attainment Re-designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was postponed by U.S. EPA pending additional monitoring and analysis in the southeastern Coachella Valley
g) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10; attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained h) The 1971 Annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard; final area designations expected by 12/31/2020 with SSAB expected to be designated Unclassifiable/Attainment 2-9 Page 1424 of 3744

Final 2016 AQMP
The current status of CAAQS attainment for the pollutants with State standards is presented in Table 2-5 for the Basin and the Riverside County portion of the SSAB (Coachella Valley).

TABLE 2-5
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley portion of Salton Sea Air Basin Pollutant Averaging Time
and Levelb
Designationa
South Coast
Air Basin Coachella Valley
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour (0.09 ppm)c Nonattainment Nonattainment 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment Attainment
PM10 24-Hour (50 µg/m3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Annual (20 µg/m3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average
(1.5 µg/m3) Attainment Attainment
CO 1-Hour (20 ppm) Attainment Attainment
8-Hour (9.0 ppm) Attainment Attainment
NO2 1-Hour (0.18 ppm) Attainment Attainment
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment Attainment
SO2 1-Hour (0.25 ppm) Attainment Attainment
24-Hour (0.04 ppm) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates 24-Hour (25 µg/m3) Attainment Attainment
H2Sc 1-Hour (0.03 ppm) Unclassified Unclassified c)
a) CA State designations shown were updated by CARB in 2016, based on the 2013–2015 3-year period; stated designations are based on a 3-year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events; Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/statedesig.htm#current b) CA State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates, and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations
c) SCAQMD began monitoring H2S in the southeastern Coachella Valley in November 2013 due to odor events related to the Salton Sea; three full years of data are not yet available for a State designation, but nonattainment is anticipated for the H2S CAAQS in at least part of the Coachella Valley

The 1979 federal 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked by the U.S. EPA and replaced by the 8- hour average ozone standard (0.08 ppm), effective June 15, 2005. However, the Basin and the former Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area (which included the Coachella Valley) had not attained the 1-hour federal ozone NAAQS by the attainment dates in 2010 and 2007, respectively, and, therefore, had continuing obligations under the former standard. On August 25, 2014, U.S. EPA 2-10 Page 1425 of 3744

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1426 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
APPENDIX 3.1:

CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION (UNMITIGATED) EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

Page 1427 of 3744 ends

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 66.00 Dwelling Unit 9.16 158,400.00 189

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2020Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated)
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 1 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1428 of 3744 ends

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - As per the Site Plan, the Total Lot Area is 9.16 acres.

Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday.

Grading -
Architectural Coating -
Vehicle Trips - Construction Run Only.

Woodstoves - Construction Run Only.

Energy Use - Construction Run Only.

Water And Wastewater - Construction Run Only.

Solid Waste - Construction Run Only.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/23/2020 2/24/2020
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/27/2020 12/30/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/11/2019 2/11/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/24/2020 1/27/2020
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2019 1/14/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/25/2020 1/28/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/12/2019 2/12/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/12/2019 1/15/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/28/2020 12/31/2019 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 2 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1429 of 3744 ends

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2019 1/1/2019
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1,608.84 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 6,155.97 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6,030.00 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 951.67 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 24,566.15 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 56.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.30 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 40,000.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,800.00 158,400.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 21.43 9.16
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 3 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1430 of 3744 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 77.49 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 4,300,165.69 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 2,710,974.02 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 4 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1431 of 3744 ends

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 5.9448 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 2020 49.9076 14.1209 15.2065 0.0243 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,359.795 9 2,359.795
9 0.7186 0.0000 2,377.760
0 Maximum 49.9076 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 5.9448 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 8.0742 2.9700 11.0442 4.0156 2.7324 6.7481 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 2020 49.9076 14.1209 15.2065 0.0243 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,359.795 9 2,359.795
9 0.7186 0.0000 2,377.760
0 Maximum 49.9076 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 8.0742 2.9700 11.0442 4.0156 2.7324 6.7481 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.91 0.00 50.72 60.42 0.00 45.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 5 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1432 of 3744 ends

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 6 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1433 of 3744 ends

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2019 1/14/2019 5 10 2 Grading Grading 1/15/2019 2/11/2019 5 20
3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/12/2019 12/30/2019 5 230 4 Paving Paving 12/31/2019 1/27/2020 5 20
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2020 2/24/2020 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 320,760; Residential Outdoor: 106,920; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 20
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 7 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1434 of 3744 ends

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Crawler Tractors 3 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 3 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 8 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1435 of 3744 ends

3.2 Site Preparation - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 20.1873 0.0000 20.1873 10.1597 0.0000 10.1597 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 2.9687 2.9687 2.7312 2.7312 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Total 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 20.1873 2.9687 23.1559 10.1597 2.7312 12.8909 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 5,000.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 24.00 7.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 9 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1436 of 3744 ends

3.2 Site Preparation - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1066 0.0747 0.7388 1.8900e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 188.3485 188.3485 6.1800e-
003
188.5030
Total 0.1066 0.0747 0.7388 1.8900e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 188.3485 188.3485 6.1800e-
003
188.5030
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.8730 0.0000 7.8730 3.9623 0.0000 3.9623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 2.9687 2.9687 2.7312 2.7312 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Total 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 7.8730 2.9687 10.8417 3.9623 2.7312 6.6935 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 10 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1437 of 3744 ends

3.2 Site Preparation - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1066 0.0747 0.7388 1.8900e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 188.3485 188.3485 6.1800e-
003
188.5030
Total 0.1066 0.0747 0.7388 1.8900e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 188.3485 188.3485 6.1800e-
003
188.5030
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.3693 0.0000 8.3693 3.5735 0.0000 3.5735 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 1.8311 1.8311 1.6846 1.6846 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Total 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 8.3693 1.8311 10.2004 3.5735 1.6846 5.2581 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 11 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1438 of 3744 ends

3.3 Grading - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.7495 66.4414 10.9603 0.1931 4.3754 0.2253 4.6006 1.1996 0.2155 1.4151 20,488.64 09 20,488.64
09 1.2531 20,519.96
92 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0888 0.0623 0.6157 1.5800e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Total 1.8382 66.5037 11.5760 0.1947 4.5430 0.2264 4.7694 1.2441 0.2165 1.4606 20,645.59 80 20,645.59
80 1.2583 20,677.05
50 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.2640 0.0000 3.2640 1.3937 0.0000 1.3937 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 1.8311 1.8311 1.6846 1.6846 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Total 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 3.2640 1.8311 5.0951 1.3937 1.6846 3.0783 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 12 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1439 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Total 1.8382 66.5037 11.5760 0.1947 4.5430 0.2264 4.7694 1.2441 0.2165 1.4606 20,645.59 80 20,645.59
80 1.2583 20,677.05
50 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Total 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 13 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1440 of 3744 ends

3.4 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0264 0.8014 0.1885 1.8400e-
003

0.0448 5.1100e-
003

0.0499 0.0129 4.8900e-
003

0.0178 193.8643 193.8643 0.0150 194.2403
Worker 0.1421 0.0997 0.9851 2.5200e-
003

0.2683 1.8000e-
003

0.2701 0.0711 1.6600e-
003

0.0728 251.1313 251.1313 8.2400e-
003
251.3373
Total 0.1684 0.9011 1.1736 4.3600e-
003

0.3131 6.9100e-
003

0.3200 0.0841 6.5500e-
003

0.0906 444.9957 444.9957 0.0233 445.5776
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Total 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 14 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1441 of 3744 ends

3.4 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0264 0.8014 0.1885 1.8400e-
003

0.0448 5.1100e-
003

0.0499 0.0129 4.8900e-
003

0.0178 193.8643 193.8643 0.0150 194.2403
Worker 0.1421 0.0997 0.9851 2.5200e-
003

0.2683 1.8000e-
003

0.2701 0.0711 1.6600e-
003

0.0728 251.1313 251.1313 8.2400e-
003
251.3373
Total 0.1684 0.9011 1.1736 4.3600e-
003

0.3131 6.9100e-
003

0.3200 0.0841 6.5500e-
003

0.0906 444.9957 444.9957 0.0233 445.5776
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 15 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1442 of 3744 ends

3.5 Paving - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0888 0.0623 0.6157 1.5800e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Total 0.0888 0.0623 0.6157 1.5800e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 0.0000 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 0.0000 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 16 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1443 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Total 0.0888 0.0623 0.6157 1.5800e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 156.9571 156.9571 5.1500e-
003
157.0858
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 17 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1444 of 3744 ends

3.5 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0819 0.0553 0.5544 1.5300e-
003

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 152.0625 152.0625 4.5400e-
003
152.1760
Total 0.0819 0.0553 0.5544 1.5300e-
003

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 152.0625 152.0625 4.5400e-
003
152.1760
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 18 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1445 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 152.0625 152.0625 4.5400e-
003
152.1760
Total 0.0819 0.0553 0.5544 1.5300e-
003

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 152.0625 152.0625 4.5400e-
003
152.1760
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Total 49.8803 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 19 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1446 of 3744 ends

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0273 0.0184 0.1848 5.1000e-
004

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 50.6875 50.6875 1.5100e-
003

50.7253
Total 0.0273 0.0184 0.1848 5.1000e-
004

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 50.6875 50.6875 1.5100e-
003

50.7253
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 49.5574 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3229 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Total 49.8803 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 20 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1447 of 3744 ends

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 50.6875 50.6875 1.5100e-
003

50.7253
Total 0.0273 0.0184 0.1848 5.1000e-
004

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 50.6875 50.6875 1.5100e-
003

50.7253
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 21 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1448 of 3744 ends

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.546179 0.037976 0.179086 0.122965 0.018430 0.005460 0.017497 0.061396 0.001337 0.001657 0.006117 0.000817 0.001082 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 22 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1449 of 3744 ends

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 23 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1450 of 3744 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Unmitigated 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435

Page 1451 of 3744 ends

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

0.2716 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.1664 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e-
003

10.0435
Total 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 25 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1452 of 3744 ends

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

0.2716 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.1664 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e-
003

10.0435
Total 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 26 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1453 of 3744 ends

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 27 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1454 of 3744 ends

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 66.00 Dwelling Unit 9.16 158,400.00 189

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2020Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated)
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 1 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1455 of 3744 ends

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - As per the Site Plan, the Total Lot Area is 9.16 acres.

Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday.

Grading -
Architectural Coating -
Vehicle Trips - Construction Run Only.

Woodstoves - Construction Run Only.

Energy Use - Construction Run Only.

Water And Wastewater - Construction Run Only.

Solid Waste - Construction Run Only.

Page 1456 of 3744 ends

Page 1457 of 3744 ends

Page 1458 of 3744 ends

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 5.9449 111.3305 27.4075 0.2438 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 25,545.80 99 25,545.80
99 2.5341 0.0000 25,609.16
25 2020 49.9076 14.1181 15.3267 0.0245 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,377.246 1 2,377.246
1 0.7192 0.0000 2,395.226
1 Maximum 49.9076 111.3305 27.4075 0.2438 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 25,545.80 99 25,545.80
99 2.5341 0.0000 25,609.16
25 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 5.9449 111.3305 27.4075 0.2438 8.0742 2.9700 11.0442 4.0156 2.7324 6.7481 0.0000 25,545.80 99 25,545.80
99 2.5341 0.0000 25,609.16
25 2020 49.9076 14.1181 15.3267 0.0245 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,377.246 1 2,377.246
1 0.7192 0.0000 2,395.226
1 Maximum 49.9076 111.3305 27.4075 0.2438 8.0742 2.9700 11.0442 4.0156 2.7324 6.7481 0.0000 25,545.80 99 25,545.80
99 2.5341 0.0000 25,609.16
25 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

Page 1459 of 3744 ends

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 6 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1460 of 3744 ends

Page 1461 of 3744 ends

Page 1462 of 3744 ends

Page 1463 of 3744 ends

3.2 Site Preparation - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1067 0.0710 0.8973 2.1100e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 209.9549 209.9549 7.0400e-
003
210.1309
Total 0.1067 0.0710 0.8973 2.1100e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 209.9549 209.9549 7.0400e-
003
210.1309
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.8730 0.0000 7.8730 3.9623 0.0000 3.9623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 2.9687 2.9687 2.7312 2.7312 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Total 5.8382 68.1103 23.1420 0.0569 7.8730 2.9687 10.8417 3.9623 2.7312 6.6935 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 10 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1464 of 3744 ends

3.2 Site Preparation - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1067 0.0710 0.8973 2.1100e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 209.9549 209.9549 7.0400e-
003
210.1309
Total 0.1067 0.0710 0.8973 2.1100e-
003

0.2012 1.3500e-
003

0.2026 0.0534 1.2500e-
003

0.0546 209.9549 209.9549 7.0400e-
003
210.1309
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 1465 of 3744 ends

3.3 Grading - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.6738 66.0202 9.5572 0.1982 4.3754 0.2215 4.5968 1.1996 0.2119 1.4115 21,031.32 49 21,031.32
49 1.1553 21,060.20
64 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0889 0.0592 0.7477 1.7600e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Total 1.7627 66.0794 10.3049 0.2000 4.5430 0.2226 4.7656 1.2441 0.2129 1.4570 21,206.28 73 21,206.28
73 1.1611 21,235.31
54 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.2640 0.0000 3.2640 1.3937 0.0000 1.3937 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 1.8311 1.8311 1.6846 1.6846 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Total 3.7079 45.2512 17.1026 0.0438 3.2640 1.8311 5.0951 1.3937 1.6846 3.0783 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 12 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1466 of 3744 ends

3.3 Grading - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.6738 66.0202 9.5572 0.1982 4.3754 0.2215 4.5968 1.1996 0.2119 1.4115 21,031.32 49 21,031.32
49 1.1553 21,060.20
64 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0889 0.0592 0.7477 1.7600e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Total 1.7627 66.0794 10.3049 0.2000 4.5430 0.2226 4.7656 1.2441 0.2129 1.4570 21,206.28 73 21,206.28
73 1.1611 21,235.31
54 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 1467 of 3744 ends

3.4 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0251 0.8060 0.1639 1.9100e-
003

0.0448 5.0400e-
003

0.0499 0.0129 4.8200e-
003

0.0177 201.6334 201.6334 0.0136 201.9743
Worker 0.1423 0.0947 1.1964 2.8100e-
003

0.2683 1.8000e-
003

0.2701 0.0711 1.6600e-
003

0.0728 279.9398 279.9398 9.3900e-
003
280.1745
Total 0.1674 0.9007 1.3603 4.7200e-
003

0.3131 6.8400e-
003

0.3200 0.0841 6.4800e-
003

0.0905 481.5732 481.5732 0.0230 482.1487
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Total 3.6389 39.6094 19.1231 0.0430 1.8139 1.8139 1.6949 1.6949 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 14 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1468 of 3744 ends

3.4 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0251 0.8060 0.1639 1.9100e-
003

0.0448 5.0400e-
003

0.0499 0.0129 4.8200e-
003

0.0177 201.6334 201.6334 0.0136 201.9743
Worker 0.1423 0.0947 1.1964 2.8100e-
003

0.2683 1.8000e-
003

0.2701 0.0711 1.6600e-
003

0.0728 279.9398 279.9398 9.3900e-
003
280.1745
Total 0.1674 0.9007 1.3603 4.7200e-
003

0.3131 6.8400e-
003

0.3200 0.0841 6.4800e-
003

0.0905 481.5732 481.5732 0.0230 482.1487
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 1469 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Total 0.0889 0.0592 0.7477 1.7600e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 0.0000 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4544 15.2441 14.6648 0.0228 0.8246 0.8246 0.7586 0.7586 0.0000 2,257.002 5 2,257.002
5 0.7141 2,274.854
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 16 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1470 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Total 0.0889 0.0592 0.7477 1.7600e-
003

0.1677 1.1300e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0400e-
003

0.0455 174.9624 174.9624 5.8700e-
003
175.1091
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 1471 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 169.5126 169.5126 5.1700e-
003
169.6420
Total 0.0819 0.0525 0.6746 1.7000e-
003

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 169.5126 169.5126 5.1700e-
003
169.6420
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733
4 0.7140 2,225.584
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 18 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1472 of 3744 ends

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 169.5126 169.5126 5.1700e-
003
169.6420
Total 0.0819 0.0525 0.6746 1.7000e-
003

0.1677 1.1000e-
003

0.1688 0.0445 1.0100e-
003

0.0455 169.5126 169.5126 5.1700e-
003
169.6420
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Total 49.8803 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

Page 1473 of 3744 ends

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 56.5042 56.5042 1.7200e-
003

56.5473
Total 0.0273 0.0175 0.2249 5.7000e-
004

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 56.5042 56.5042 1.7200e-
003

56.5473
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 49.5574 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3229 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.1479 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0291 375.9904 Total 49.8803 2.2451 2.4419 3.9600e-
003

Page 1474 of 3744 ends

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 56.5042 56.5042 1.7200e-
003

56.5473
Total 0.0273 0.0175 0.2249 5.7000e-
004

0.0559 3.7000e-
004

0.0563 0.0148 3.4000e-
004

0.0152 56.5042 56.5042 1.7200e-
003

56.5473
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 21 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1475 of 3744 ends

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail

Page 1476 of 3744 ends

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 23 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1477 of 3744 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Unmitigated 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435

Page 1478 of 3744 ends

0.2716 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.1664 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e-
003

10.0435
Total 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 25 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1479 of 3744 ends

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

0.2716 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.1664 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e-
003

10.0435
Total 3.5742 0.0632 5.4632 2.9000e-
004

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:42 PMPage 26 of 27 Upland Colonies (Construction - Unmitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1480 of 3744 ends

Page 1481 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1482 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
APPENDIX 3.2:

CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION (MITIGATED) EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUT

Page 1483 of 3744 ends

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 66.00 Dwelling Unit 9.16 158,400.00 189

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2020Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated)
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 1 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1484 of 3744 ends

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - As per the Site Plan, the Total Lot Area is 9.16 acres.

Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment - Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes.

Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday.

Grading -
Architectural Coating -
Vehicle Trips - Construction Run Only.

Woodstoves - Construction Run Only.

Energy Use - Construction Run Only.

Water And Wastewater - Construction Run Only.

Solid Waste - Construction Run Only.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - All equipment operating at >150 HP are required to be equipped with Tier 3 or better engines.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 2 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1485 of 3744 ends

tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/23/2020 2/24/2020
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/27/2020 12/30/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/11/2019 2/11/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/24/2020 1/27/2020
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2019 1/14/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/25/2020 1/28/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/12/2019 2/12/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/12/2019 1/15/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/28/2020 12/31/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2019 1/1/2019
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1,608.84 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 6,155.97 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6,030.00 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 951.67 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 24,566.15 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 56.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.30 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 40,000.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,800.00 158,400.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 21.43 9.16
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 3 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1486 of 3744 ends

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.43 0.43
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 77.49 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 4,300,165.69 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 2,710,974.02 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.30 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 4 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1487 of 3744 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 5 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1488 of 3744 ends

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 5.9448 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 2020 49.9076 14.1209 15.2065 0.0243 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,359.795 9 2,359.795
9 0.7186 0.0000 2,377.760
0 Maximum 49.9076 111.7549 28.6786 0.2385 20.3885 2.9700 23.3585 10.2131 2.7324 12.9455 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2019 2.9139 87.2992 36.0461 0.2385 8.0742 1.1916 9.1000 4.0156 1.1647 5.0413 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 2020 49.9076 14.1209 15.2065 0.0243 0.1677 0.7539 0.9216 0.0445 0.6936 0.7381 0.0000 2,359.795 9 2,359.795
9 0.7186 0.0000 2,377.760
0 Maximum 49.9076 87.2992 36.0461 0.2385 8.0742 1.1916 9.1000 4.0156 1.1647 5.0413 0.0000 24,985.12 06 24,985.12
06 2.6313 0.0000 25,050.90
20 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

5.43 19.43 -16.79 0.00 59.91 47.76 58.73 60.42 45.76 57.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 6 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1489 of 3744 ends

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0300 0.0000 9.8045 9.8045 9.5600e- 003

0.0000 10.0435
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 7 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1490 of 3744 ends

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 320,760; Residential Outdoor: 106,920; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 20
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:47 PMPage 8 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1491 of 3744 ends

Upland City CouncilJune 9, 2025

Upland City Council
June 9, 2025