Agenda packet — Upland City Council, June 9, 2025 (part 13 of 25)

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 1:47 PMPage 9 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1492 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
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
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 1:47 PMPage 10 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1493 of 3744 ends

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 1.3969 27.0067 30.2661 0.0569 1.0244 1.0244 1.0244 1.0244 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Total 1.3969 27.0067 30.2661 0.0569 7.8730 1.0244 8.8974 3.9623 1.0244 4.9867 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 1:47 PMPage 11 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1494 of 3744 ends

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 1:47 PMPage 12 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1495 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 1.0756 20.7955 24.4701 0.0438 0.8142 0.8142 0.8142 0.8142 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Total 1.0756 20.7955 24.4701 0.0438 3.2640 0.8142 4.0782 1.3937 0.8142 2.2079 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 1:47 PMPage 13 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1496 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 1:47 PMPage 14 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1497 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 2.0280 23.5872 24.6905 0.0430 1.1847 1.1847 1.1581 1.1581 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Total 2.0280 23.5872 24.6905 0.0430 1.1847 1.1847 1.1581 1.1581 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 1:47 PMPage 15 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1498 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 1:47 PMPage 16 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1499 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 1:47 PMPage 17 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1500 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 1:47 PMPage 18 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1501 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 1:47 PMPage 19 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1502 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 1:47 PMPage 20 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1503 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 1:47 PMPage 21 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1504 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 1:47 PMPage 22 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1505 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 1:47 PMPage 23 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1506 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 1:47 PMPage 24 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1507 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 1508 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 1:47 PMPage 26 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1509 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 1:47 PMPage 27 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1510 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 1:47 PMPage 28 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1511 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, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 1:48 PMPage 1 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1512 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 1:48 PMPage 2 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1513 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 1:48 PMPage 3 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1514 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 1:48 PMPage 4 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1515 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 1:48 PMPage 5 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1516 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 2.8383 86.8749 34.7751 0.2438 8.0742 1.1915 9.1000 4.0156 1.1646 5.0413 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 86.8749 34.7751 0.2438 8.0742 1.1915 9.1000 4.0156 1.1646 5.0413 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

5.56 19.49 -17.24 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 1:48 PMPage 6 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1517 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 1:48 PMPage 7 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1518 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 1:48 PMPage 8 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1519 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 1:48 PMPage 9 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1520 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
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
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 1:48 PMPage 10 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1521 of 3744 ends

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 1.3969 27.0067 30.2661 0.0569 1.0244 1.0244 1.0244 1.0244 0.0000 5,636.740 6 5,636.740
6 1.7834 5,681.325
8 Total 1.3969 27.0067 30.2661 0.0569 7.8730 1.0244 8.8974 3.9623 1.0244 4.9867 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 1:48 PMPage 11 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1522 of 3744 ends

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

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 1:48 PMPage 12 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1523 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 1.0756 20.7955 24.4701 0.0438 0.8142 0.8142 0.8142 0.8142 0.0000 4,339.522 6 4,339.522
6 1.3730 4,373.847
1 Total 1.0756 20.7955 24.4701 0.0438 3.2640 0.8142 4.0782 1.3937 0.8142 2.2079 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 1:48 PMPage 13 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1524 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

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 1:48 PMPage 14 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1525 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 2.0280 23.5872 24.6905 0.0430 1.1847 1.1847 1.1581 1.1581 0.0000 4,181.025 5 4,181.025
5 1.1342 4,209.380
9 Total 2.0280 23.5872 24.6905 0.0430 1.1847 1.1847 1.1581 1.1581 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 1:48 PMPage 15 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1526 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

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 1:48 PMPage 16 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1527 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 1:48 PMPage 17 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1528 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

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 1:48 PMPage 18 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1529 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 1:48 PMPage 19 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1530 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

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 1:48 PMPage 20 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1531 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

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 1:48 PMPage 21 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1532 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 1:48 PMPage 22 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1533 of 3744 ends

4.2 Trip Summary Information

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 1:48 PMPage 23 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1534 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 1:48 PMPage 24 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1535 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 1536 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 1:48 PMPage 26 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1537 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 1:48 PMPage 27 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1538 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 1:48 PMPage 28 of 28 Upland Colonies (Construction - Mitigated) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1539 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1540 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
APPENDIX 3.3:

CALEEMOD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUT

Page 1541 of 3744 ends

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

Construction Phase - Operations Run Only.

Off-road Equipment - Operations Run Only.

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

Grading -
Trips and VMT - Operations Run Only.

Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates based on information provided in the TIA by Urban Crossroads (2018) Woodstoves - Rule 445

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 (Operations)
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 1 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1542 of 3744 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 1.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2019 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2019 1/1/2019
tblFireplaces NumberGas 56.10 66.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.30 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 2.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,800.00 158,400.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 21.43 9.16
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 8.55
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.30 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 2 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1543 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 3 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1544 of 3744 ends

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Energy 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mobile 1.3571 9.7888 16.3540 0.0600 4.5873 0.0563 4.6436 1.2276 0.0530 1.2807 6,112.957 2 6,112.957
2 0.3426 6,121.523
0 Total 5.1191 11.4567 22.5000 0.0705 4.5873 0.2161 4.8034 1.2276 0.2128 1.4405 0.0000 8,171.285 7 8,171.285
7 0.3915 0.0376 8,192.263
9 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 3.7023 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Energy 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mobile 1.3571 9.7888 16.3540 0.0600 4.5873 0.0563 4.6436 1.2276 0.0530 1.2807 6,112.957 2 6,112.957
2 0.3426 6,121.523
0 Total 5.1191 11.4567 22.5000 0.0705 4.5873 0.2161 4.8034 1.2276 0.2128 1.4405 0.0000 8,171.285 7 8,171.285
7 0.3915 0.0376 8,192.263
9 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 4 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1545 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 1/1/2019 5 1 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 0 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 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: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 5 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1546 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 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 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 Construction Off-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 6 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1547 of 3744 ends

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 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 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 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 7 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1548 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 1.3571 9.7888 16.3540 0.0600 4.5873 0.0563 4.6436 1.2276 0.0530 1.2807 6,112.957 2 6,112.957
2 0.3426 6,121.523
0 Unmitigated 1.3571 9.7888 16.3540 0.0600 4.5873 0.0563 4.6436 1.2276 0.0530 1.2807 6,112.957 2 6,112.957
2 0.3426 6,121.523
0 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 623.04 629.64 564.30 2,103,569 2,103,569 Total 623.04 629.64 564.30 2,103,569 2,103,569
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 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 8 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1549 of 3744 ends

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

0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 9 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1550 of 3744 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Total 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Unmitigated
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

5.53245 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Total 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 10 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1551 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 3.7023 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Unmitigated 3.7023 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 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 0.1281 1.0948 0.4659 6.9900e-
003

0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0000 1,397.647
1 1,397.647
1 0.0268 0.0256 1,405.952
6 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 3.7024 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:02 PMPage 11 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1552 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 0.1281 1.0948 0.4659 6.9900e-
003

0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0000 1,397.647
1 1,397.647
1 0.0268 0.0256 1,405.952
6 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 3.7024 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 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 2:02 PMPage 12 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1553 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 2:02 PMPage 13 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter

Page 1554 of 3744 ends

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

Construction Phase - Operations Run Only.

Off-road Equipment - Operations Run Only.

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

Grading -
Trips and VMT - Operations Run Only.

Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates based on information provided in the TIA by Urban Crossroads (2018) Woodstoves - Rule 445

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 (Operations)
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 1 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1555 of 3744 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 1.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2019 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2019 1/1/2019
tblFireplaces NumberGas 56.10 66.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.30 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 2.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,800.00 158,400.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 21.43 9.16
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 8.55
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.30 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 2 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1556 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 3 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1557 of 3744 ends

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Energy 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mobile 1.5493 9.7333 18.6556 0.0651 4.5873 0.0559 4.6432 1.2276 0.0526 1.2803 6,630.417 4 6,630.417
4 0.3397 6,638.910
3 Total 5.3113 11.4012 24.8016 0.0757 4.5873 0.2157 4.8030 1.2276 0.2124 1.4401 0.0000 8,688.745 9 8,688.745
9 0.3886 0.0376 8,709.651
2 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 3.7023 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Energy 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mobile 1.5493 9.7333 18.6556 0.0651 4.5873 0.0559 4.6432 1.2276 0.0526 1.2803 6,630.417 4 6,630.417
4 0.3397 6,638.910
3 Total 5.3113 11.4012 24.8016 0.0757 4.5873 0.2157 4.8030 1.2276 0.2124 1.4401 0.0000 8,688.745 9 8,688.745
9 0.3886 0.0376 8,709.651
2 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 4 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1558 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 1/1/2019 5 1 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 0 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 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: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 5 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1559 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 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 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 Construction Off-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 6 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1560 of 3744 ends

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 2.1210 0.0000 2.1210 0.2290 0.0000 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 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 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 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 7 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1561 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 1.5493 9.7333 18.6556 0.0651 4.5873 0.0559 4.6432 1.2276 0.0526 1.2803 6,630.417 4 6,630.417
4 0.3397 6,638.910
3 Unmitigated 1.5493 9.7333 18.6556 0.0651 4.5873 0.0559 4.6432 1.2276 0.0526 1.2803 6,630.417 4 6,630.417
4 0.3397 6,638.910
3 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 8 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1562 of 3744 ends

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

0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 9 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1563 of 3744 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Total 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

5.53245 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Total 0.0597 0.5099 0.2170 3.2500e-
003

0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 650.8770 650.8770 0.0125 0.0119 654.7448 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 10 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1564 of 3744 ends

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Unmitigated 3.7023 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

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 0.1281 1.0948 0.4659 6.9900e-
003

0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0000 1,397.647
1 1,397.647
1 0.0268 0.0256 1,405.952
6 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 3.7024 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/31/2018 2:04 PMPage 11 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1565 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 0.1281 1.0948 0.4659 6.9900e-
003

0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0885 0.0000 1,397.647
1 1,397.647
1 0.0268 0.0256 1,405.952
6 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 3.7024 1.1580 5.9291 7.2800e-
003

0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.1186 0.0000 1,407.451
5 1,407.451
5 0.0364 0.0256 1,415.996
0 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 2:04 PMPage 12 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1566 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 2:04 PMPage 13 of 13 Upland Colonies (Operations) - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer

Page 1567 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis

11823-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1568 of 3744 ends

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

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Page 1569 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

UPLAND COLONIES 59

UPLAND, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 5)
(APN 1045-121-02)

Prepared for:

FH II, LLC
2151 E. Convention Center Way
Suite 100
Ontario, California 91764

Prepared by:

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017

Principal Investigators:

Randall Arnold, President and Principal Biologist
Blake Curran, Environmental Scientist/Biologist
Parker Smith, Biological Field Technician

Project: #2018-67

July 13, 2018
(Updated August 30, 2018)

Page 1570 of 3744 ends

TITLE PAGE

Date Report Written: July 13, 2018 (Updated August 30, 2018)

Date Field Work Completed: July 10, 2018

Report Title: General Biological Resources Assessment

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 1045-121-02

Prepared for: FH II, LLC
2151 E. Convention Center Way, Suite 100
Ontario, California 91764

Principal Investigators: Randall C. Arnold, Jr., Principal Biologist Parker L. Smith, Biological Field Technician
Blake Curran, Environmental Scientist/Biologist

Contact Information: Randall C. Arnold, Jr.

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017
[email protected]
www.rcaassociatesllc.com

Page 1571 of 3744 ends

Table of Contents
Section

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................ 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Wildlife............................................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 3

3.0 METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Plants ................................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Wildlife............................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas ......................................................... 5

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH .................................................................................................... 7

5.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 General Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 10

5.3 Federal and State Listed Species .................................................................................... 11

5.4 Wildlife Species of Special Concern .............................................................................. 11

5.5 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat .................................................................... 11

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................. 12

6.1 General Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 12

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern ............................................. 12

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 13

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 14 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 16

Appendix A – Tables and Figures

Page 1572 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Biological surveys were conducted on a parcel that is approximately 10-acre in size located north of East 15th Street in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California (Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 5, USGS Ontario, California Quadrangle, 1956) (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Focused surveys were also performed for the burrowing owl. The property supports a buckwheat shrubland community consisting of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), and brome grasses (Bromus sp.) (Figure 3). The site does not appear to have been recently disturbed with native shrubs dominating the landscape.

As part of the environmental process, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data sources were reviewed. Following the data review, surveys were performed on the site on July 10, 2018, during which the biological resources on the site and in the surrounding areas were documented by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc. As part of the surveys, the property and adjoining areas including area of improvement were evaluated for the presence of native habitats which may support populations of sensitive wildlife species. The property and adjoining area were also evaluated for the presence of sensitive habitats including wetlands, vernal pools, riparian habitats, and jurisdictional areas.

Based on data from USFWS, CDFW, and a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2017), there are thirty-seven sensitive species that have been documented in the general region within approximately five miles of the project site. Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references: Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2000) and Whitaker (1980). Tables 1 and 2 provides information on the various special status plants and animal species which occur in the area (Appendix A).

The proponent is proposing to use the parcel for building a residential community. The parcel will be split into approximately 57 lots that are 50 ft wide and 4,000 SF minimum.

Page 1573 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Environmental Setting
The property is approximately 10-acre located north of East 15th Street in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California (Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 5, USGS Ontario, California Quadrangle, 1956). The site does not show signs of being disturbed in the recent past, with native vegetation still dominating the landscape. A channel that is approximately 30 ft wide on the bottom is located within the project site that bisects in an east-west direction. The site is bordered on the north, east, and south by developed land while the continuation of the channel border the site to the west. The parcel has been enclosed with a chain-link fence.

2.2 Vegetation Communities
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), and California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum) are the dominant perennials and the dominant annuals include brome grasses (Bromus sp.), annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), and schismus (Schismus barbatus). On the northern border of the parcel there is a row of non-native trees that has since encroached on to the property from the golf course. Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various plant species observed during the surveys.

2.3 Wildlife
The site is expected to support a variety of wildlife species on the site; however, only a few species were observed during the field investigations. Mammals observed on the site or which are expected to inhabit the site include cottontails (Sylvilagus auduboni) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Coyotes (Canis latrans), which are very common in the region, also utilize the site during hunting activities.

Birds observed included ravens (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various species observed during the surveys.

Page 1574 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3

Reptiles observed during the survey include alligator lizard (Elgaria sp.), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and western whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris). Table 2 provides a compendium of wildlife species.

2.4 Soils
The soil of the project site is composed of Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (100%).

The sandy loam series are well drained and have moderately rapid permeability. The soil series onsite are not considered hydric per the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National List of Hydric Soils (USDA, 2018).

In addition, no sensitive habitats (e.g., sensitive species critical habitats, etc.) have been documented in the immediate area according to the CNDDB (2018) and none were observed during the field investigations. In addition, the basin which bisects the site may have surface connections with channels downstream which may be considered jurisdictional.

Page 1575 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4

3.0 METHODOLOGIES
General biological surveys were conducted on July 10, 2018, during which biologists from RCA Associates, Inc initially walked meandering transects throughout the property site and adjoining areas. During the surveys, data was collected on the plant and animal species present on the site.

All plants and animals detected during the surveys were recorded and are provided in Tables 1 & 2 (Appendix A). The property was also evaluated for the presence of habitats which might support sensitive species. Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references:

Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2000), and Whitaker (1980). Following completion of the initial reconnaissance survey, protocol surveys were conducted for the burrowing owl as per agency requirements. Weather conditions consisted of wind speeds of 0 to 5 mph, temperatures in the mid 80’s (°F) (AM) with mostly clear skies. The applicable methodologies are summarized below.

3.1 Plants
Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Samples of unusual and less familiar plants were collected and returned to the lab for identification using taxonomical guides. Soil maps were used to identify areas of the site which may contain suitable soils to support sensitive plant species. A list of all species observed on the project site was compiled from the survey data (Appendix A, Table 2). The taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2018).

3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife species detected during the field surveys were identified by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs and were recorded in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of species during surveys and included the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (2017) and Burt and Grossenheider (1980) for mammals . Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized, scientific names are used in this report and are provided in Appendix A for reference.

Burrowing Owl: A habitat assessment (Phase 1) was conducted for the burrowing owl in conjunction with the general biological surveys to determine if the site supports suitable habitat

Page 1576 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5

for the species, July 10, 2018. Following completion of the habitat assessment, it was determined that the site does not support suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. Therefore, a focused survey (Phase II) does not need to be conducted for burrowing owls for the absence of occupiable (i.e., suitable) burrows which could potentially be utilized by owls. As part of the burrow survey, transects were walked throughout the site during which any suitable burrows were evaluated for owls and owl sign. Burrowing owls typically utilize burrows which have been excavated by other animals (squirrels, coyotes, foxes, dogs, etc.) since owls rarely dig their own burrows. CDFW protocol also requires surveys be conducted in the surrounding area out to a distance of about 500 feet; therefore, the zone of influence (ZOI) surveys were performed in the area surrounding the site. If present on a site, CDFW typically requires the owls to be passively relocated during the non-breeding season.

Nesting Birds
The project site contains some suitable nesting habitat for avian species. Nesting birds are protected under section 3503 of the CDFW code and/or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA ).

A few common bird species were observed within the project area during the survey with ravens (Corvus corax), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). All bird species observed are included in the faunal compendium in Appendix A, Table 3.

3.3 Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting the field investigations on July 10, 2018.

The aerial photographs were used to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features and water bodies that may be considered riparian/riverine habitat or which may be under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features are typically indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps, which are expected to exhibit evidence of water flow through the channel. Such areas are considered potentially riparian/riverine habitat and may be subject to State and federal regulatory authority as “Waters of the State” or “Waters” of the U.S. Riparian/riverine habitat is defined as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens,

Page 1577 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6

which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year.

Page 1578 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH
As part of the environmental process, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was performed. Based on this review, it was determined that twenty-nine special status species have been documented within the Ontario quad of the property. The following tables provide data on each special status species which has been documented in the area.

Table 4-1: Federal and State Listed Species and State Species of Special Concern.

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of special concern; CNPS = California Native Plant Society; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Data Base

Name Listing Status Habitat
Requirements
Presence/Absence
California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
Fed: None
State: None
range of scrub and
grassland habitats
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
Fed: None
State: None
Coastal bluff scrub
Coastal scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Southern California
legless lizard (Anniella
stebbinsi)
Fed: None
State: None
Broadleaved upland
forest
Chaparral
Coastal dunes
Coastal scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Plummer's mariposa-
lily (Calochortus
plummerae)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest
Valley & foothill
grassland
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Northwestern San
Diego pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
(Chorizanthe xanti var.
leucotheca)
Fed: E
State: None
Coastal scrub The site does not support suitable habitat for the species.

Slender-horned
spineflower
(Dodecahema
leptoceras)
Fed: E
State: E
Chaparral
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
Fed: None
State: None
Grasslands and desert
habitats
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no owl observed during
field surveys.

Page 1579 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8

Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
Fed: None
State: None
Food plant genera
include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.

The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no bees observed during
field surveys.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
Fed: None
State: T
Riparian forest
Riparian woodland
Valley & foothill
grassland
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no raptors observed during
field surveys.

Luck morning-glory
(Calystegia felix)
Fed: None
State: None
Fed: None
State: None
Meadow & seep
Riparian scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

California saw-grass
(Cladium californicum)
Fed: None
State: None
Alkali marsh
Freshwater marsh
Meadow & seep
Wetland
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

California diplectronan
caddisfly (Diplectrona
californica)
Fed: None
State: None
Aquatic

The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
Valley & foothill
grassland
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no bats observed during
field surveys.

Mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
Fed: None
State: None
Desert wash The site does not support suitable habitat for the species.

California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus)
Fed: None
State: T
Brackish marsh
Freshwater marsh
Marsh & swamp
Salt marsh
Wetland
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Robinson’s pepper-
grass (Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no pepper-grass observed
during field surveys.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
Fed: None
State: None
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands
and forests.

The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no bat observed during
field surveys.

California muhly
(Muhlenbergia
californica)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest
Meadow & seep

The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no muhly observed during
field surveys.

Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia (Navarretia
prostrata)
Fed: None
State: None
Coastal scrub
Meadow & seep
Valley & foothill
grassland
Vernal pool
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Page 1580 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 9

Wetland
San Diego desert
woodrat (Neotoma
lepida intermedia)
Fed: None
State: None
Coastal scrub The site does support suitable habitat for the species; however, no rodents observed during
field surveys.

Big free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops macrotis)
Fed: None
State: None
Need high cliffs or rocky
outcrops for roosting
sites. Feeds principally
on large moths.

The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no bats observed during
field surveys.

White rabbit-tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
Fed: None
State: None
Chaparral
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
Riparian woodland
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no rabbit-tobacco observed
during field surveys.

Salt spring
checkerbloom (Sidalcea
neomexicana)
Fed: None
State: None
Alkali playa
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest
Mojavean desert scrub
Wetland
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

San Bernardino aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
Fed: None
State: None
Cismontane woodland
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest
Marsh & swamp
Meadow & seep
Valley & foothill
grassland
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no aster observed during
field surveys.

Two-stripped
gartersnake
(Thamnophis
hammondii)
Fed: None
State: None
Marsh & swamp
Riparian scrub
Riparian woodland
Wetland
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Rigid fringepod
(Thysanocarpus
rigidus)
Fed: None
State: None
Pinon & juniper
woodlands
The site does not support suitable habitat for
the species.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
Fed: None
State: None
Desert scrub
Sandy washes
The site does support suitable habitat for the
species; however, no coast horned lizard
observed during field surveys.

Page 1581 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 General Biological Resources
The site supports a buckwheat shrubland community which covers most of the property (Figure 5). Species present on the site included California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly- pear (Opuntia spp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), and brome grasses (Bromus sp.). Table 1 provides a compendium of all plants occurring on the site and/or in the immediate surrounding area.

Birds observed included ravens (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna).

California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni) were observed on the site, however; coyotes are known to occur in the area and may traverse the site during hunting activities. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provides a compendium of the various plant and animal species identified during the field investigations and those common to the area.

No distinct wildlife corridors were identified on the site or in the immediate area.

Reptiles common in the region which is expected to inhabit the site include alligator lizard (Elgaria sp.), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and western whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris).

Table 2 provides a compendium of wildlife species observed during the various surveys and those likely to occur in the area.

No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations. However, the basin which bisects the site may have surface connections with channels downstream which may be considered jurisdictional.

Refer to section 5.5 for a discussion of the basin.

Page 1582 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 11

5.3 Federal and State Listed Species
No federal or State-listed species were observed on the site or zone of influence during the field investigations nor are any listed species expected to inhabit the site.

5.4 Wildlife Species of Special Concern
Sensitive Plants: There are numerous plants that have been documented in the quad. As mentioned above, about twelve sensitive plants have been documented within Ontario quadrangle.

However, the site does not support habitats typically associated with the sensitive plants know to occur in the region. Therefore, no sensitive plant species are expected to inhabit the site and the project is not expected to impact any sensitive species.

Sensitive Wildlife: Within the Devore quad there are multiple species that are of Special Concern; however, the site does not support habitats typically associated with most of the sensitive species in the region. The only sensitive species which could potentially occur on the site is the burrowing owl and no owls were detected during the focused surveys conducted on the site. In addition, the site is not expected to support any populations of any other sensitive wildlife species.

5.5 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the State of California also regulates waters of the State and streambeds under the prevue of regional water quality boards and CDFW jurisdiction.

These waters include wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. A basin bisects the middle of the parcel and water was observed during the field investigations conducted on July 10, 2018; however, the basin may have surface connections with channels downstream which may be considered jurisdictional. The basin area has been previously described as a basin in the drainage study conducted by Madole & Associates, Inc. (June 12, 2017). No riparian vegetation was observed in the channel (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, etc.) during the July 2018 surveys.

Page 1583 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 12

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

6.1 General Biological Resources
Future development of the site will impact the general biological resources present on the site and areas of improvement, and most of the vegetation will likely be removed during future construction activities. Wildlife will also be impacted by development activities and those species with limited mobility (i.e., small mammals and reptiles) will experience increases in mortality during the construction phase. There is potential for various nesting birds to utilize the shrubs within the project site. However, potential impacts to nesting birds can be eliminated or significantly reduced if vegetation suitable for nesting birds is removed outside of the nesting bird season. The nesting season for birds typically occurs from February 15th to August 31st.

No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations. The basin which bisects the site may have surface connections with channels downstream which may be considered jurisdictional.

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern No federal or State-listed species were observed on the site during the field investigations. In addition, there are no documented observations of these species either on the site or in the immediate area. As per CDFW protocol, the burrowing owl survey results are valid for only 30 days; therefore, CDFW may require a 30-day pre-construction survey be performed prior to any clearing/grading activities to determine if owls have moved on to the site since the July 11, 2018, surveys.

Page 1584 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 13

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Future development activities are expected to result in the removal of vegetation from the 10-acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the presence of habitat on the site which is very common throughout the region. In addition, future development activities are not expected to have any impact on any State or Federal listed or State special status plant or animal species. In addition, burrowing owls do not inhabit the site and are not expected to be impacted given the absence of any suitable burrows. The following mitigation measures are recommended:

1. Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code shall be conducted prior to the commencement of Project-related ground disturbance. a. Appropriate survey methods and timeframes shall be established, to ensure that chances of detecting the target species are maximized.
b. In the event that listed species are encountered, authorization from the USFWS and CDFW must be obtained. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure that nests are not disturbed until after young have fledged.
c. Pre-construction surveys shall encompass all areas within the potential footprint of disturbance for the project, as well as a reasonable buffer around these areas.

If any sensitive species are observed on the property during future activities, CDFW and USFWS (as applicable) should be contacted to discuss specific mitigation measures which may be required for the individual species. CDFW and USFWS are the only agencies which can grant authorization for the “take” of any sensitive species and can approve the implementation of any applicable mitigation measures.

Page 1585 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 14

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, Bruce G, et. al.
2002. The Jepson Desert Manual. Vascular Plants of Southeastern California.

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management
January 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan. Vol. 1A.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines

California Department of Fish and Game
1990. California Wildlife: Volume 1 (Amphibians and Reptiles), Volume II (Birds), and Volume III (Mammals).

California Department of Fish and Game
2003. Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game
2014. Rarefind 3 Natural Diversity Database. Habitat and Data Analysis Branch.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 2013. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 34 pp.

California Native Plant Society
2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA x + 388 pp.

Ehrlich, P., Dobkin., Wheye, D.

Birder’s Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds.

Simon & Schuster Building Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas. New York, New York 10020.

Hickman, James C.

The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Berkeley, CA. 3rd Edition. 1996.

Jaeger, Edmund C.
1969. Desert Wild Flowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 321 pp.

Kays, R. W. & Wilson, D. E.

Mammals of North America. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 2002.

Page 1586 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 15

Munz, Philip A.
1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 pp.

Tugel, Arlene J., Woodruff, George A.

Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County California, Mojave River Area.

Sibley, David Allen.

National Audubon Society. The Sibley guide to Birds. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 2000.

Stebbins, Robert C.

A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2010 Desert Tortoise Survey Protocol.

Whitaker, John O.

The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1980.

Page 1587 of 3744 ends

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 16

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits, presents the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by Randall Arnold and other biologists under his direction. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project applicant or applicant’s representative and that I have no financial interest in the project.

Date: ___08/30/2018________ Signed: ______________________________________ Blake Curran

Field Work Performed By: Randall Arnold_____
President and Principal Biologist

Field Work Performed By: Parker Smith______
Field Biological Technician

Field Work Performed By: Blake Curran______
Environmental Scientist/Biologist

Page 1588 of 3744 ends

Appendix A

Tables and Figures

Page 1589 of 3744 ends

Page 1590 of 3744 ends

Page 1591 of 3744 ends

Page 1592 of 3744 ends

Figure 4
Site Plan

Page 1593 of 3744 ends

Figure 5
Site Photographs

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING NORTH

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING EAST

Page 1594 of 3744 ends

Figure 5 Cont.

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING WEST

LOOKING AT THE FLOWING WATER IN CHANNEL

Page 1595 of 3744 ends

Table 1 - Plants observed on the site and known to occur in the immediate surrounding area.

Common Name Scientific Name Location
California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum On site and Surrounding Area
Prickly-pear Opuntia spp. “
Deerweed Acmispon glaber “
California yerba santa Eriodictyon californicum “
California broomsage Lepidospartum squamatum “
Tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca “
Brome grass Bromus sp. “
Jimsonweed Datura stramonium “
Castor bean Ricinus communi “
Sahara mustard Brassica tournefortii “
Annual Bursage Ambrosia acanthicarpa “
Flat Topped Buckwheat Eriogonum deflexum “
Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata “
Schismus Schismus barbatus “
Fiddleneck Amsinckia tessellata “
Filaree Erodium cicutarium “
Persian silk tree Albizia julibrissin “
Ash tree Fraxinus ssp. “
Brazilin pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius “
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia “
Palm Arecaceae ssp. “

Note: The above list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of every plant which may occur on the site or in the zone of influence.

Page 1596 of 3744 ends

Table 2 - Wildlife observed on the site during the field investigations.

Common Name Scientific Name Location
Common raven Corvus corax On-site and in the
surrounding area.

California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi “
House sparrow Passer domesticus “
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus “
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottus “
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura “
Turkey vulture Cathertes aura On site and surrounding
area
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis “
Western whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus tigris “
Alligator lizard Elgaria sp.

Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana “
Spiny lizard Sceloporus sp. “
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni “
Coyotes Canis latrans “

Note: The above Table is not a comprehensive list of every animal species which may occur in the area, but is a list of those common species which were identified on the site or which have been observed in the region by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc.

Page 1597 of 3744 ends

REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following provides a summary of federal and state regulatory jurisdiction over biological and wetland resources. Although most of these regulations do not directly apply to the site, given the general lack of sensitive resource, they provide important background information.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. ESA defines “take” as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines the term “harass” as an intentional or negli gent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR17.3).

Furthermore, federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, “harm” includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR217.12).

Section10(a) of the ESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by ESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of another wise lawful activity.” Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, generally referred to as an HCP, is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the ESA for administering the incidental take program. NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required

Page 1598 of 3744 ends

to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance or permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (ESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.

Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, the Section 9 of the ESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting th e malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act.

California Endangered Species Act
CDFW has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 2080 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Section 2080 prohibits the take of a species listed by CDFW as threatened or endangered. The state definition of take is similar to the federal definition, except that Section 2080 does not prohibit indirect harm to listed species by way of habitat modification.

To qualify as take under the state ESA, an action must have direct, demonstrable detrimental effect on individuals of the species. Impacts on habitat that may ultimately result in effects on individuals are not considered take under the state ESA but can be considered take under the federal ESA.

Proponents of a project affecting a state-listed species must consult with CDFW and enter into a management agreement and take permit under Section 2081. The state ESA consultation process is similar to the federal process. California ESA does not require preparation of a state biological assessment; the federal biological assessment and the CEQA analysis or any other relevant information can provide the basis for consultation. California ESA requires that CDFW coordinate consultation for joint federally listed and state-listed species to the extent possible; generally, the state opinion for the listed species is brief and references provisions under the federal opinion.

Page 1599 of 3744 ends

Clean Water Act, Section 404
The COE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the placement of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States include lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as “areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3).

The COE may issue either individual permits on a case-by-case basis or general permits on a program level. General permits are pre-authorized and are issued to cover similar activities that are expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWP’s) are general permits issued to cover particular fill activities. All NWP’s have general conditions that must be met for the permits to apply to a particular project, as well as specific conditions that apply to each NWP.

Clean Water Act, Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires water quality certification and authorization of placement of dredged or fills material in wetlands and Other Waters of the United States. In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, criteria for allowable discharges into surface waters have been developed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. As such, proponents of any new project which may impair water quality as a result of the project are required to create a post construction storm water management plan to insure offsite water quality is not degraded. The resulting requirements are used as criteria in granting National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or waivers, which are obtained through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Any activity or facility that will discharge waste (such as soils from construction) into surface waters, or from which waste may be discharged, must obtain an NPDES permit or waiver from the RWQCB. The RWQCB evaluates an NPDES permit application to determine whether the proposed discharge is consistent with the adopted water quality objectives of the basin plan.

Page 1600 of 3744 ends

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 1600-1616
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections1600-1616 CDFW regulates projects that divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.

Proponents of such projects must notify CDFW and enter into streambed alteration agreement with them.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code requires a state or local government agency, public utility, or private entity to notify CDFW before it begins a construction project that will: (1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, bank, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; (2) use materials from a streambed; or (3) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake. Once the notification is filed and determined to be complete, CDFW issues a streambed alteration agreement that contains conditions for construction and operations of the proposed project.

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and flacons) or Strigiformes (owls).

Take would include the disturbance of an active nest resulting in the abandonment or loss of young.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act.

Sensitive Natural Communities
The California Office of Planning and Research and the Office of Permit Assistance (1986) define project effects that substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants, or that disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community as significant impacts under CEQA.

This definition applies to certain natural communities because of their scarcity and ecological

Page 1601 of 3744 ends

values and because the remaining occurrences are vulnerable to elimination. For this study, the term “sensitive natural community” includes those communities that, if eliminated or substantially degraded, would sustain a significant adverse impact as defined under CEQA. Sensitive natural communities are important ecologically because their degradation and destruction could threaten populations of dependent plant and wildlife species and significantly reduce the regional distribution and viability of the community. If the number and extent of sensitive natural communities continue to diminish, the status of rare, threatened, or endangered species could become more precarious, and populations of common species (i.e., not special status species) could become less viable. Loss of sensitive natural communities also can eliminate or reduce important ecosystem functions, such as water filtration by wetlands and bank stabilization by riparian woodlands for example.

Page 1602 of 3744 ends

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

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Page 1603 of 3744 ends

Page 1604 of 3744 ends

Page 1605 of 3744 ends

Page 1606 of 3744 ends

Page 1607 of 3744 ends

Page 1608 of 3744 ends

Page 1609 of 3744 ends

Page 1610 of 3744 ends

Page 1611 of 3744 ends

Page 1612 of 3744 ends

Page 1613 of 3744 ends

Page 1614 of 3744 ends

Page 1615 of 3744 ends

Page 1616 of 3744 ends

Page 1617 of 3744 ends

Page 1618 of 3744 ends

Page 1619 of 3744 ends

Page 1620 of 3744 ends

Page 1621 of 3744 ends

Page 1622 of 3744 ends

Page 1623 of 3744 ends

Page 1624 of 3744 ends

Page 1625 of 3744 ends

Page 1626 of 3744 ends

Page 1627 of 3744 ends

Page 1628 of 3744 ends

Page 1629 of 3744 ends

Page 1630 of 3744 ends

Page 1631 of 3744 ends

Page 1632 of 3744 ends

Page 1633 of 3744 ends

Page 1634 of 3744 ends

Page 1635 of 3744 ends

Page 1636 of 3744 ends

Page 1637 of 3744 ends

Page 1638 of 3744 ends

Page 1639 of 3744 ends

Page 1640 of 3744 ends

Page 1641 of 3744 ends

Page 1642 of 3744 ends

Page 1643 of 3744 ends

Page 1644 of 3744 ends

Page 1645 of 3744 ends

Page 1646 of 3744 ends

Page 1647 of 3744 ends

Page 1648 of 3744 ends

Page 1649 of 3744 ends

Page 1650 of 3744 ends

Page 1651 of 3744 ends

Page 1652 of 3744 ends

Page 1653 of 3744 ends

Page 1654 of 3744 ends

Page 1655 of 3744 ends

Page 1656 of 3744 ends

Page 1657 of 3744 ends

Page 1658 of 3744 ends

Page 1659 of 3744 ends

Page 1660 of 3744 ends

Page 1661 of 3744 ends

Page 1662 of 3744 ends

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

GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION INVESTIGATION

Page 1663 of 3744 ends

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

PREPARED FOR

FRONTIER ENTERPRISES
2151 EAST CONVENTION CENTER WAY,SUITE 100
ONTARIO,CALIFORNIA 91764

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK,INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA,CALIFORNIA 92880
PROJECT NO.1925-CR JULY 12,2018

Page 1664 of 3744 ends

July 12, 2018
Project No.1925-CR
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Way, Suite 100
Ontario, California 91764
Attention:Mr.Daniel Pocius
Subject:Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs)1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34 Upland Colonies 59
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr.Pocius:

We are pleased to provide the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the subject property located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California. This report presents a discussion of our evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for earthwork,foundation design,and construction.

In our opinion,site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project.

GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS Page 1665 of 3744

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Robert R. Russell
GE 2042, Exp. 12/31/18
Senior Project Engineer
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/20
Principal Geologist
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Distribution:(1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
G:\Projects\1901 to 1950\1925CR Frontier Enterprises APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Upland\Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation\1925CR Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Upland.doc

Page 1666 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................................................1

2.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...............................................................1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................1

3.FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................2

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ..............................................................................................................................................................2

3.2 INFILTRATION TEST INFORMATION......................................................................................................................................3

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................................................................................................3

4.GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................4

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................4

4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................4

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill ..........................................................................................................................................................................4

4.2.2 Alluvium ..............................................................................................................................................................................................4

4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER ...........................................................................................................................................5

4.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.3.2 Groundwater .....................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ....................................................................................................................................................5

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters..........................................................................................................................................................5

4.5 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT ...............................................................................................6

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................................................................................6

5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................7

5.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................................................7

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................7

5.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition ......................................................................................................................................................7

5.2.2 Removals............................................................................................................................................................................................7

5.2.3 Engineered Fills ................................................................................................................................................................................8

5.2.4 Excavation Characteristics ...........................................................................................................................................................8

5.2.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence ...........................................................................................................................................................8

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................9

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................................................................9

5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations ....................................................................................................................12

5.3.3 Foundation Set Backs .................................................................................................................................................................12

5.3.4 Retaining and Garden Wall Design and Construction .....................................................................................................12

5.3.5 Soil Corrosivity ...............................................................................................................................................................................15

5.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content .....................................................................................................................................................................15

5.3.7 Import Soils ....................................................................................................................................................................................15

5.3.8 Concrete Flatwork ........................................................................................................................................................................16

5.4 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................17

5.4.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ..................................................................................................................................17

5.4.2 Drainage .........................................................................................................................................................................................17

5.5 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................18

6.INTENT ...............................................................................................................................................18

Page 1667 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................19

8.SELECTED REFERENCES .................................................................................................................19

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 –Site Location and General Site Topography Map Figure 2 –Trench Location Map
Appendix A –Logs of Exploratory Trenches
Appendix B –Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix C –Infiltration Test Data
Appendix D –General Earthwork Grading Guidelines

Page 1668 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 1

1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions for the proposed improvements.Services provided for this study included the following:
Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site,
A site reconnaissance,
Excavation of eight exploratory trenches on-site,
Infiltration testing in two shallow exploratory trenches on-site, Collection of soil samples of the on-site materials,
Laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected from the site, Review and evaluation of site seismicity,and;
Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our preliminary recommendations for site development.

The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future proposed development from a geotechnical perspective.The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report will likely need to be updated based upon our review of the final site development plans. These plans should be provided to GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek)for review when available.

2.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located north of East 15th Street in the city of Upland.The irregular-shaped site is approximately 9.16 acres in size. The site is currently vacant land with no visual indication of previous structural improvements. However,based on a review of aerial photography,the site appears to be part of a storm water basin.

Page 1669 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 2
The site is in an area largely residentially developed. The site is bounded by an existing golf course to the north, residential developments to the south and west and vacant land and the golf course to the east and northeast. An electrical substation is located further to the west.

Based on information provided to us by the client, it is our unde rstanding the proposed improvements include a single-family residential development consisting of 57 residential building pads, several storm water basins and associated roadways.

Specific structural loading was not provided to us. Therefore, this repor t has been prepared based on the proposed residential structures will be of wood -frame construction, two-stories and less and incorporate a concrete slab -on-grade floor.

Based on topographic information provided, the elevation of the site ranges from abou t El. 1413 within the bottom of the existing basin to about El. 1430 along the top of the ascending slopes. The existing slopes appear to be inclined at ratios of about 3:1 (horizontal:vertical).

Although proposed site grades have not been provided, we a nticipate that the existing basin will be filled so that the new buildings will be close to adjacent development site grades.

Accordingly, we anticipate cuts and fills up to about 15 feet in thickness.

If site development differs from the information presented in this report, the recommendations should be subject to further review and evaluation by GeoTek.Final site development plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available.

3.FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Our geotechnical field exploration was conducted on June 28, 2018.A geologist from GeoTek logged eight exploratory test trenches excavated with a backhoe . The trenches were located within the vicinity of the proposed improvements (see Trench Location Map,Figure 2).Logs of the exploratory trenches are included in Appendix A.Samples of on-site soils encountered in the excavations were returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation .

Page 1670 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 3

3.2 INFILTRATION TEST INFORMATION
Two test trenches (T-4 and T-8) were excavated to a depth of approximately four feet below the existing ground surface within proposed storm water retention/basin areas as directed to us by the project civil engineer,Proactive Engineering Consultants.A 11-inch diameter test hole was then excavated at the base of the test trench to a depth of about 12 inches.The test holes were then filled with water to pre-soak the test hole. Following pre-soaking, the test holes were filled with water and the drop in water level as the water percol ated into the underlying soil was recorded every 6 or 30 minutes. The test was continued for a minimum of twelve readings and the final reading was used in the calculation of the infiltration rate. The field data was converted to an infiltration rate via the Porchet method.

The infiltration rates are presented in the follow table for each of the borings after the rates had stabilized.

Test No.Infiltration Rate (inches per hour)
T-4 20.9
T-8 3.48
Copies of the percolation data sheets and infiltration conversion sheets (Porchet Method) are included in Appendix C.

Over the lifetime of the storm water disposal areas, the infiltration rates may be affected by silt build up and biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil condi tions. We recommend that an appropriate factor of safety be applied.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected bulk soil samples collected during our field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soils encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis.Laboratory testing has included expansion index and corrosion potential (pH, resistivity,chloride and sulfate content).Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B or on the exploratory logs included in Appendix A .

Page 1671 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 4

4.GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 975 miles from the north and north easterly adjacent the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.

The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks.

Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province.

The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

More specific to the property, the is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by alluvial fan deposits (Morton,D.M.and Miller F.K.,2006).

4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered at the subject site is presented in the following sections. Based on our field exploration and observations, the site is generally underlain by undocumented fill and alluvium.

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill
Undocumented fill was encountered within five of the test trenches to depths ranging from about 2.5 to 6.5+feet below grade. The undocumented fill encountered consisted of a silty gravelly sand to a silty sand with some cobbles and/or boulders. Trace brick and tile fragments were also observed in the fill within one of the test excavations.

4.2.2 Alluvium
Alluvium was encountered at existing grade and/or below the undocumented fill.In general, the alluvial materials encountered typically consist of silty sand,sand and sandy gravel with variable cobble content.

Page 1672 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 5
According to the results of the laboratory testing performed,the near-surface alluvial soils exhibited a “very low”expansion potential when tested in accordance w ith ASTM D 4829.

The test results are provided in Appendix B.

4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 Surface Water
Surface water was not observed on the site during our subsurface exploration .If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation.

Overall site area drainage is generally by sheet flow in a northerly direction.Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory excavations. Based on a review of information contained in the State Water Resources Control Board database ( http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/) groundwater is estimated to be greater than 100 feet below ground surface.

Based on the results of our field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed improvements .

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is presently known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo”Earthquake Fault Zone.The nearest mapped active faults are the Sierra Madre fault, located about 2.6 miles to the north and the Red Hill -Etiwanda fault located about 5.3 miles to the northeast.

Based on a review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays (Sheet FH 27C), the site is not located within a designated fault hazard, liquefaction hazard or landslide hazard area.

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 34.1184°Latitude and -117.6332°Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, were determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps for Risk - Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Ground Motion Response Accelerations

Page 1673 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 6
for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude. The results are presented in the following table:

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.786g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.629g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.5
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.786g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 0.944g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS 1.190g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 1 second, SD1 0.629g
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism.

4.5 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Based on a review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlay Map (FH 27C- Ontario), the site is not located within a designated liquefaction hazard zone. A review of the groundwater contours noted on the map by Carson and Matti (Carson and Matti, 1985), the depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet below grade. G roundwater data ( http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/)also suggests that groundwater is at a depth greater than 100 feet below existing grade.

Liquefaction is not considered to be a hazard at the subject site due to the great depth to groundwater (greater than 50 feet)and the current geologic hazard mapping .

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
The site is not mapped within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility per the California Geological Survey.Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our investigation.Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible for design purposes.

The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche or tsunami is considered negligible due to site elevation and distance to an open body of water.

Page 1674 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 7

5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
The anticipated site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations,and those provided by this firm at a later date,are properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of development.Site development and grading plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Upland,the 2016 California Building Code (CBC),and recommendations contained in this report.The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site -specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix D.

5.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition
In areas of planned grading and improvements, the site should be cleared of vegetation, roots, and debris. These materials should be properly disposed of off-site.Voids resulting from site clearing should be replaced with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to the on-site soils.

5.2.2 Removals
Due to the presence of undocumented fill and the disturbed nature of the exposed alluvium , we recommend that the existing soils be removed to a depth of at least four feet below existing or finish grade, whichever is deeper.In areas where fill is exposed at the base of the over-excavation, the exposed fill soils should be examined by a GeoTek representative to determine if additional removals are warranted.

A minimum of three feet of engineered fill should be provided below the bottom of the proposed footings.The horizontal extent of removals should extend at least eight feet outside the perimeter footings and floor-slabs, or a distance equal to the depth of over-excavation below the bottom of the structural elements, whichever is greater.

Page 1675 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 8

5.2.2.1 Pavement and Hardscape Areas
A minimum of 12 inches of engineered fill should be provided below asphaltic concrete pavement and Portland cement concrete hardscape areas. The horizontal extent of removals should extend at least two feet beyond the edge.

5.2.2.2 Preparation of Areas to Receive Engineered Fill A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavati ons. Upon approval, the exposed soils and all soils in areas to receive engineered fill should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moistened to slightly over the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557).

5.2.3 Engineered Fills
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material.Due to the presence of cobbles and boulders, some sorting of over-sized materials (+6 inches) is also expected to be necessary.

The undercut areas should be brought to the final subgrade elevations with fill materials that are placed in eight inch or less loose lifts,moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557.The upper one foot of pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent (ASTM D 1557).

5.2.4 Excavation Characteristics
Excavation in the on-site soils is expected to be feasible utilizing heavy-duty grading equipment in good operating condition. All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be constructed in accordance with local and Cal-OSHA guidelines.

Temporary excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) inclinations for cuts less than four feet in height.Some excavation difficulties could result due to the presence of cobbles and boulders.

5.2.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage,subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations,as well as the accuracy of topography.

Page 1676 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 9
Shrinkage is primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of approximately 5 to 15 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and /or recompaction.Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction.Subsidence on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 feet may occur.

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria
The soils tested within our laboratory indicated the site soils possess a “very low”(0≤EI<20) expansion potential in accordance with ASTM D 4829.Foundation design criteria, in general conformance with the 2016 CBC, are presented below.Typical design criteria for the site based upon a “very low”expansion potential are tabulated below. These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer.

The foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely i n engineered fill soils. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC).

Expansion index and soluble sulfate testing of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded conditions.Final recommendations should be based upon the as-graded soils conditions.

A summary of our foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:

Page 1677 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 10

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
Design Parameter “Very Low” Expansion Potential
0≤EI≤20
Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam
Depth (inches below the lowest adjacent grade)
One-Story –12
Two-Stories –18
Minimum Foundation Width (inches)*One-to Two-Stories –12 Minimum Slab Thickness (inches)4 -Actual
Sand Blanket and Moisture Retardant membrane
below On-Grade Building Slabs
2 inches of sand** overlying moisture vapor retardant
membrane overlying 2 inches of sand**
Minimum Slab Reinforcing 6” x 6”–W1.4/W1.4 welded wire fabric placed in the middle of slab
Minimum Footing Reinforcement for Continuous
Footings, Grade Beams and Retaining Wall Footings
Two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top
and one near the bottom
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum/Depth in Inches)
Minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture content
to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to placing
concrete
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2016 CBC
**Sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30
An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of building and retaining wall footings.This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional 12 inches of embedment depth and by 200 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum of 3,000 psf.The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one- third when considering short-term wind and/or seismic loads.

For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, we would anticipate a maximum static settlement of less than one inch and a maximum differential static settlement of less than ½-inch in a 40-foot span. We recommend that the structural engineer evaluate the seismic-induced settlement and determine the impact on the proposed improvements.

The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. The upper one foot of soil below the adjacent grade should not be used in calculating passive pressure. When combining passive and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one -third.

A moisture and vapor retarding syste m should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2013 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also

Page 1678 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 11
meet the requirements of ASTM E1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane.

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a six -mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivale nt.

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in this area for additional evaluation.

Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarders should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post-Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines.

GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, and/or architect be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact.

In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since we along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in areas of mold prevention. If specific recommendations are desired, a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.

Page 1679 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 12

5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations
To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. Under-slab utility trenches should be compacted to project specifications . Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. If soils to be used as backfill have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches.

5.3.3 Foundation Set Backs
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2016 CBC or City of Upland requirements, whichever is more stringent. Improvements not conforming to these setbacks are subject to the increased likelihood of excessive lateral movements and/or differential settlements. If large enough, these movements can compromise the integrity of the improvements.

The bottom of any proposed foundations should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 upward projection from the bottom edge of the nearest excavation and the bottom edge of the closest footing.

5.3.4 Retaining and Garden Wall Design and Construction

5.3.4.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of up to six feet.Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls.These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer .

Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill.

Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report.

Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.

Page 1680 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 13
All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section

5.3.4.3 in this report.

In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure ,may be designed using the active condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls)should be designed using the at-rest condition.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharge s due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (h:v) projectio n from the surcharge on the stem of the earth retention structure shou ld be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures.

5.3.4.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to six feet high.

Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions.

Page 1681 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 14

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials
(h:v)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
Select Backfill* and Native Soils
Level 30
2:1 45
*The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20.Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (1:1 h:v) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall)to the ground surface.

5.3.4.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
The wall backfill should also include a minimum one-foot wide section of ¾-to one-inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade. The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on -site materials.The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric. T he presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than eight inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance wit h ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained.

As an alternative to the drain, rock and fabric, Miradrain 2000 or approved equivalent may be used behind the retaining wall. The Miradrain 2000 should extend from t he base of the wall to within two feet of the ground surface. The subdrain should be placed in direct contact with the Miradrain 2000.

Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent)embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per linear foot of ¾-to one-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet.Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall s is undesirable.

Page 1682 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 15

5.3.4.4 Restrained Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top that support level backfill or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an equivalent at-rest fluid pressure of 55 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of ma le or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or a distance otherwise determined by the project structural engineer.

5.3.4.5 Other Design Considerations
Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should b e approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

5.3.5 Soil Corrosivity
The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on one sample collected during the field investigation.The results of the testing indicate that the on -site soils (resistivity =65,660 ohm-cm)are considered “progressively less corrosive”to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. We recommend that a corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for the protection of buried ferrous metal at this site.

5.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for one on-site soil samples.The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “not applicable” (negligible)as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318.

5.3.7 Import Soils
Import soils should have expansion characteristics similar to the on -site soils (EI<20). GeoTek also recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential. GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hour s prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed.

Page 1683 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 16

5.3.8 Concrete Flatwork

5.3.8.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs, Sidewalks and Driveways Exterior concrete slabs, sidewalks and driveways should be designed using a four -inch minimum thickness. No specific reinforcement is required from a geotechnical perspective.

However, some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in residential construction.

Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented in this report.

Subgrade soils (typically “very low” expansion potential)should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc.at the subject site should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 100 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches.

All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with City of Upland specifications, and under the observati on and testing of GeoTek and a City/County inspector, if necessary.

5.3.8.2 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 0.125-inch in width. Most cracks in concrete ,while unsightly,do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks , some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete can also undergo chemical processes that are dependent upon a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material ,is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.

Page 1684 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 17
Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered “non-structural” components. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structures themselves.

5.4 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.4.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runof f and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate.

Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. An abatement program to control ground -burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained since they can decrease the long-term performance of slopes.

It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to the structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided.

5.4.2 Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings.Soil areas within 10 feet of the proposed structures should slope at a minimum of five percent away from the building, if possible, unless the area is paved. Paved areas are to be sloped two percent away from the structure.Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements.

It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each ra iny season.

Page 1685 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 18

5.5 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that specifications and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations.The owner/developer should verify that GeoTek representatives perform at least the following duties:
Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials.
Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
Observe the fill for uniformity during placement,including utility trench backfill. Also, perform field density testing of the fill materials .
Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials with respect to density.
Observe retaining wall backdrain.

If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction ov er the project.We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.

6.INTENT
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development.Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction.

The scope of our evaluation is limited to the boundaries of the subject property. This review does not and should in no way be construed to encompass a ny areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any

Page 1686 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 19
existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client’s needs, our fee estimate (Proposal No.P-0602818) dated June 11, 2018 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this locality at the present.

7.LIMITATIONS
Our findings are based on site conditions ob served and the stated sources.GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided , subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report.

Our recommendations are based on the site cond itions observed and encountered and laboratory testing. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that ar e limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warra nty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time.

8.SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R -06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Ma terials.
_____, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),2013, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15 .

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2016,“California Building Code,” 3 volumes.

Carson, S. E. and Matti, J.C., 1985, “Contour Map Showing Minimum Depth to Groundwater, Upper Santa Anan River Valley, California, 1973 -1979”, USGS Map MF-1802.

Page 1687 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page 20
Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2002, “Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernar dino Counties, California,”Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-91, scale 1:24,000.

GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.

National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984,“Corrosion Basics, An Introduction”.

Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. and Thornburn, T. H., 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second Edition.

San Bernardino County Land Use Services Geologic Hazard Maps ( http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/Planning/ZoningOverlayMaps/GeologicHazardMaps.aspx ) Seismic Design Values for Buildings ( http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php) .

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition.

The County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans, Appendix VII., Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, with an effective date of September 19, 2013.

Page 1688 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No. 1925-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
and General
Site
Topography
Map

APPROXIMATE

SITE AREA
Modified from USGS
Guasti, Mount Baldy,
Ontario and
Cucamonga Peak 7.5-
minute Topographic
Map Sheets

Page 1689 of 3744 ends

Figure 2
Trench
Location Map
Frontier Enterprises
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
GeoTek Project No. 1925-CR
Legend
Approximate
Trench Location
T-8
T-8
T-1
T-7
Subject
Property
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6

Page 1690 of 3744 ends

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES
APNs 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No.1925-CR

Page 1691 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page A-1

A -FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.

Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pou nds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices .

B –TRENCH LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of trenches:

SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium

GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
………..Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of the trench
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of trenches)

Page 1692 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SM
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-1
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
5 Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
Silty gravelly f-c SAND, light brown, dry, some boulders up to 24", some roots
Gravelly f-c SAND, gray, dry, some cobbles, rare boulders up to 18" 10 Cobble Silty f-c SAND, gray, dry
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET (REFUSAL)
15 LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Backfilled with excavated soils

Page 1693 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
EI, SR
SM
GP
SP
GP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-2
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

ALLUVIUM
Silty gravelly f-c SAND, gray, dry, some cobbles, some roots F-c sandy GRAVEL, brownish gray, slightly moist, few cobbles 6" thick bed of gravel dipping same angle of slope
F-c SAND, gray, dry
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET (REFUSAL)
5 Silty f-c sandy GRAVEL, gray, slightly moist, some cobbles 15 10
LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Backfilled with excavated soils

Page 1694 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SM
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-3
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)

ALLUVIUM
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
Silty f-c SAND, gray, dry, some gravel, few cobbles, some roots 5 Same as above, trace rootlets
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET (REFUSAL)
Backfilled with excavated soils
10 15
LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist, few cobbles, one large boulder up to 24"

Page 1695 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SP
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-4
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

ALLUVIUM
Gravelly f-c SAND, brownish gray, dry, some cobbles
5 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET
Backfilled with excavated soils
Same as above, trace boulders 16-20", becomes slightly moist M-c SAND, gray, slightly moist
10 SA = Sieve Analysis
SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation 15 LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index

Page 1696 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-5
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

ALLUVIUM
Gravelly f-c SAND, gray, dry, some cobble, some roots, trace boulders 12- 18"
One 24" boulder, trace oxidized staining
Gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist, trace rootlets 5 More cobbles become apparent
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET (REFUSAL)
Backfilled with excavated soils
10 LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index
15 SA = Sieve Analysis
SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation

Page 1697 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SM EI
SP
No groundwater
Backfilled with excavated soils
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-6
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET (REFUSAL)
5 Silty f-c SAND, grayish brown, dry, some gravel, some cobble, some rootlets
15 10
LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Silty f-c SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist, some gravel, some cobble, trace boulders up to 14"
Gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist, some cobble, trace boulders up to 16"

Page 1698 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SM
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density

EQUIPMENT
See Exploration Location Map
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:

Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-7
Laboratory Testing
5 Same as above, no rootlets
F-c SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, some gravel, trace cobble, few rootlets
Backfilled with excavated soils
10 15
LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Silty f-c SAND, brownish gray, dry, some gravel, few cobbles, some roots TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET (REFUSAL)

Page 1699 of 3744 ends

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
DRW
Backhoe
6/28/2018
SP
SM
SP
No groundwater
Sample type: ---Water Table
Lab testing: RV = R-Value Test
MD = Maximum Density
CLIENT:Frontier Enterprises LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NAME:Upland Basin EQUIPMENT
PROJECT NO.:1925-CR DATE:

LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map

SAMPLES
US
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
TRENCH NO.: T-8
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
Wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)

ALLUVIUM
Ot
h
e
r
s

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
F-c SAND, grayish brown, dry, some gravel, trace brick and tile 10 M-c SAND, gray, slightly moist
5 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET
Backfilled with excavated soils
15 LE
G
E
N
D
---Ring ---Large Bulk
AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation Silty f-c SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, some gravel, trace cobble, rare plastic material

Page 1700 of 3744 ends

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
APNs 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No.1925-CR

Page 1701 of 3744 ends

Frontier Enterprises Project No.1925-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation –Residential Development July 12, 2018 Upland, San Bernardino County, California Page B-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually in general accordance to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the log of trenches in Appendix A.

Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on one representative soil sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results of the testing are provided below.

Boring No.Depth (ft.)Description Expansion
Index Classification
T-2 0-2 Silty Sand 0 Very Low
T-6 1-3 Silty Sand 0 Very Low
Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content
Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by Project X Corrosion Engineering in general accordance with ASTM D516. Resistivity testing was completed by others in general accordance with ASTM G187. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D 512B. The results of the testing are provided below.

Boring No.Depth (ft.)pH
ASTM G51
Chloride
ASTM D512B
(mg/kg))
Sulfate
ASTM D516
(% by weight)
Resistivity
ASTM G187
(ohm-cm)
T-2 0-2 7.36 6 0.0030 65,660

Page 1702 of 3744 ends

APPENDIX C

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
APNs 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No.1925-CR

Page 1703 of 3744 ends

Page 1704 of 3744 ends

Page 1705 of 3744 ends

Page 1706 of 3744 ends

Page 1707 of 3744 ends

Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It =Inches per Hour
Client:Frontier Enterprises
Project:Upland
Initial Depth to Water, D O =0
Project No:1925-CR
Date:6/28/2018
Trench No.T-4
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval,Δt =6
Final Depth to Water, DF =7.75
Test Hole Radius, r =5.5

19.60 Total Test Hole Depth, DT =12
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO =12
HF = DT - DF =4.25

8.125
ΔH =ΔD = HO- HF =7.75

Page 1708 of 3744 ends

Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It =Inches per Hour
Time Interval,Δt =30
Client:Frontier Enterprises
Project:Upland
Project No:1925-CR
Date:6/29/2018
Trench No.T-8
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF =6.75
Test Hole Radius, r =5.5
Initial Depth to Water, D O =0

3.26 Total Test Hole Depth, DT =12
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO =12
HF = DT - DF =5.25
ΔH =ΔD = HO- HF =6.75

8.625

Page 1709 of 3744 ends

APPENDIX D

GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
APNs 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34
Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No.1925-CR

Page 1710 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-1
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures.

General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of govern ing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2016)and the guidelines presented below.

Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative)should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.

Grading Observation and Testing

1.Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.

Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified.

2.Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill.

3.Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation.

4.Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm.

Page 1711 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-2
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR

5.In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained.

6.Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.

7.Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a)Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope . b)If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compactio n is being achieved.

8.Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete.

Site Clearing

1.All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.

2.Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.

This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equip ment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.

3.Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative .

Treatment of Existing Ground

1.Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report.

Page 1712 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-3
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR

2.In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative.

3.Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation d ifficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.

4.Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.

5.Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.

Fill Placement

1.Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).

2.Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.

3.If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a)Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates.
b)Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.

4.Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a)They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b)There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c)The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative.

5.Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested.

6.In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable

Page 1713 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-4
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.

Slope Construction

1.The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutti ng back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.

2.Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to pr operly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary.

3.If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.

Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slop es should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.

4.Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.

5.Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization.

UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibi lity. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.

Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.

1.Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.

Page 1714 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-5
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR

2.Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. Th is is typically limited to the following uses:
a)shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b)as bedding in pipe zone.

The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.

3.Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.

Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade.

4.Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil.

5.Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. I f zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractors attention.

JOB SAFETY
General
Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job si te safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury.

In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects.

1.Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings.

2.Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site.

3.Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.

Page 1715 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-6
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.

Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern.

Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.

A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow.

This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Traffic Direction
Vehicle
parked here Test Pit Spoil
pile
Spoil
pile
Test Pit

SIDE VIEW

PLAN VIEW

TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
10 0 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment

Page 1716 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-7
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.

The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.

Trench Safety
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill.

All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.

Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which;

1.is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,

2.exit points or ladders are not provided,

3.displays any evidence of instability, has any loose ro ck or other debris which could fall into the trench, or

4.displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.

If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.

Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed unti l the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.

In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines,we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project

Page 1717 of 3744 ends

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
APNs 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34 Page D-8
Upland, San Bernardino County,California Project No.1925-CR manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general.

The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the z one of non-encroachment.

Page 1718 of 3744 ends

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

GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 1719 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies

GREENHOUSE GAS 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 GHG Report

Page 1720 of 3744 ends

Page 1721 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... I APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................ II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................ III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 Construction and Operational-Source Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 2 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4

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

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Construction and Operational-Source Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 7 2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING ........................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change ........................................................................................ 9

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories ........................................................................................ 9

2.3 Global Climate Change Defined .................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Human Health Effects ................................................................................................................. 16

2.6 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 18

2.7 Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 33 Standards of Significance ....................................................................................................................... 33 3 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ........................................................................................ 36

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 36

3.2 California Emissions Estimator Model™ Employed to Estimate GHG Emissions ........................ 36

3.3 Construction and Operational Life-Cycle Analysis Not Required ................................................ 36

3.4 Project Related greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 36

3.5 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 37

3.7 Emissions Summary .................................................................................................................... 39

3.8 2008 CARB Scoping Plan Consistency ......................................................................................... 39

3.9 SB32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency ......................................................................................... 40

3.10 City of Upland Climate Action Plan Consistency ......................................................................... 42 4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 44 5 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 47

Page 1722 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
ii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................. 5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN ................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT ................................................ 17

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: TOTAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL) ................................................ 1 TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................. 2 TABLE 2-1: TOP GHG PRODUCER COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ..... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE 2-2: GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS ............... 14 TABLE 3-1: TOTAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL) ............................................... 39 TABLE 3-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SCOPING PLAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION .. 40

Page 1723 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
APS Alternative Planning Organizations
ARB California Air Resources Board
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CEC California Energy Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPS Emission Performance Standard
GCC Global Climate Change
GHGA Greenhouse Gas Analysis
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
LCA Life-Cycle Analysis
MMs Mitigation Measures
MMTCO2e Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MTCO2e Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
N20 Nitrogen Dioxide
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less

Page 1724 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
iv
PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PPM Parts Per Million
Project Upland Colonies
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Page 1725 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11823-03 GHG Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GHG Impact #1: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The City of Upland has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the County of San Bernardino (1) and numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin and is based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required (2).

As shown on Table ES-1, the Project will result in approximately 1,415.62 MTCO2e per year; the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year. Thus, project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required.

TABLE ES-1: TOTAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL) Emission Source
Emissions (metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 25.50 0.01 0.00 25.63
Area 16.96 1.39E-03 2.90E-04 17.08
Energy 291.06 9.63E-03 3.54E-03 292.36
Mobile Sources 1,006.83 0.05 0.00 1,008.19
Waste 15.73 0.93 0.00 38.97
Water Usage 28.80 0.14 3.54E-03 33.39
Total CO2E (All Sources) 1,415.62
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant? NO
Source: CalEEMod™ model output, See Appendix 3.1 for detailed model outputs.

Note: Totals obtained from CalEEMod™ and may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table results include scientific notation. e is used to represent times ten raised to the power of (which would be written as x 10b") and is followed by the value of the exponent

Page 1726 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11823-03 GHG Report
2 GHG impact #2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan (2008 and 2017 Scoping Plans) and the City of Upland Climate Action Plan (CAP). Detailed evaluation with respect to the 2008 Scoping Plan, 2017 Scoping Plan, and the City of Upland CAP is presented in Sections 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 respectively.

As shown in these sections, the Project would be consistent with the 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the City of Upland CAP. As such, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and a less than significant impact would occur with respect to this threshold.

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL-SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES As shown on Table ES-2, no significant impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
GHG Impact #1 3.0 Less Than Significant n/a
GHG Impact #2 3.0 Less Than Significant n/a

Page 1727 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
3 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1728 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11823-03 GHG Report
4 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the greenhouse gas analysis (GHGA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Upland Colonies Project (referred to as “Project”).

The purpose of this GHGA is to evaluate Project -related construction and operational emissions and determine the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts as a result of constructing and operating the proposed Project.

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 (3). 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 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The Project would be required to comply with all mandates imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air q uality emissions. Those that are applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are:
•Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) (4)
•Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) (5) •Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles (6). •Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction (7).
•Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances (8).
•Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020 (9).
•California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduc ed water waste in existing landscapes (10).
•Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions (11).

Page 1729 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11823-03 GHG Report
5 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Page 1730 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
6 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

Page 1731 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11823-03 GHG Report
7 •Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020 (12).
•Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Requires the state to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B -30- 15 (13).

Promulgated regulations that will affect the Project’s emissions are accounted for in the Project’s GHG calculations provided in this report. In particular, the Pavley Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standards, and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) will be in effect for the AB 32 target year of 2020, and therefore are accounted for in the Project’s emission calculations.

1.4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL-SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Page 1732 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
8 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1733 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
9 2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. GCC is currently one of the most controversial environmental issues in the United States, and much debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring naturally or as a result of human activity. Some data suggests that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousands or millions of years. These historical changes to the earth’s climate have occurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contrib ution of greenhouse gases combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, Section 3.0 will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
Global
Worldwide anthropogenic (human) GHG emissions are tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2016. For the Year 2016, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,747,554 Gg CO2e1 (14) (9). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in Table 2-1; however, the data is representative of currently available inventory data.

1 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non-Annex I countries, without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

For countries without 2016 data, the UNFCCC data for the most recent year were used. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF,” The most recent GHG emissions for China were taken in 2012, while the most recent GHG emissions for India were taken in 2010.

Page 1734 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
10 United States
As noted in Table 2-1, the United States, as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2016. The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 81.6 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for approximately 93.5 percent of the GHG emissions (16).

TABLE 2-1: TOP GHG PRODUCER COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 2 Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China 11,895,765
United States 6,511,302
European Union (28 member countries) 4,291,252
India 2,643,817
Russian Federation 2,100,850
Japan 1,304,568
Total 28,747,554
State of California
CARB compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2018 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000 -2016 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 429.4 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2015 (17).

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

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as gr eenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity.

Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

2 Used http://unfccc.int data for Annex I countries. Consulted the CAIT Climate Data Explorer in http://www.wri.org site to reference Non- Annex I countries such as China and India.

Page 1735 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
11 Although California’s rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slowing, the state is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. In 2004, California is estimated to have produced 492 million gross metric tons of CO2e greenhouse gas emissions. Despite a population increase of 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls (18).

2.4 GREENHOUSE GASES
For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide were evaluated (see Table 3-4 later in this report) because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

Water Vapor: Water vapor (H20) is the most abundant, important, and variable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. A climate feedback is an indirect, or secondary, change, either positive or negative, that occurs within the climate system in response to a forcing mechanism. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere.

The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedb ack loop will continue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the earth’s surface and heat it up).

There are no human health effects from water vapor itself; however, when some pollutants come in contact with water vapor, they can dissolve and the water vapo r can then act as a pollutant- carrying agent. The main source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent). Other sources include: evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from sea ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves.

Carbon Dioxide: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG. Outdoor levels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. Carbon dioxide is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic

Page 1736 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
12 matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks (19).

Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution. Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources (20).

Methane: Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than carbon dioxide and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to other GHGs. No health effects are known to occur from exposure to methane.

Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.

Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas.

Nitrous oxide can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is considered harmless. However, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause Olney’s Lesions (brain damage) (21).

Concentrations of nitrous oxide also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

In 1998, the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb). Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel - fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh. It is used in rocket engines and in race cars. Nitrous oxide can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the earth’s surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction Chlorofluorocarbons: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs are no longer being used; therefore, it is not likely that health effects would be experienced. Nonetheless, in confined indoor locations, working with CFC-113 or other CFCs is thought to result in death by cardiac arrhythmia (heart frequency too high or too low) or asphyxiation.

Page 1737 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
13 CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was u ndertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining.

However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Hydrofluorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the greenhouse gases, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheri c abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were of HFC-23. HFC-134a emissions are increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of HFC -23 and HFC-134a are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each; and that concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt (22). No health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs, which are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays, which occur about 60 kilometers above earth’s surface, are able to destroy the compounds. Beca use of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt.

No health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur Hexafluoride: Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest global warming potential (GWP) of any gas evaluated (23,900). The U.S. EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it disp laces the oxygen needed for breathing.

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

Greenhouse gases have varying GWP values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1.

The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized at Table 2-2.

As shown in the table below, GWP for the Second Assessment Report (SAR), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s scientific and socio -economic assessment on climate change, range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride and GWP for the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4) range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 22,800 for sulfur hexafluoride.

Page 1738 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
14 TABLE 2-2: GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential (100 year time horizon)
Second Assessment
Report (SAR)
4th Assessment Report
(AR4)
Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 1
Methane 12 ± 3 21 25
Nitrous Oxide 120 310 298
HFC-23 264 11,700 14,800
HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 1,430
HFC-152a 1.5 140 124
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 22,800
Source: Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 Public Health
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range (3 -5.5F) to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range (5.5-8F). In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditio ns. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55 percent more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario (8-10.5F), there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90oF in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

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

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

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as

Page 1739 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
15 much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range.

How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation.

It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficien t snow for skiing and snowboarding.

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

Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply they need. Although higher CO 2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water -use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate O3 pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts.

In addition, continued global climate change could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued global climate change could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

Forests and Landscapes
Global climate change has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural v egetation.

If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of

Page 1740 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
16 factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90 percent due to decreased precipitation.

Moreover, continued global climate change has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures.

The productivity of the state’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of global climate change.

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

2.5 HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide as they relate to development projects such as the proposed Project are still being debated in the scientific community. Their cumulative effects to global climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health. Increases in Earth’s ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat-related deaths. Scientists also purport that higher ambient temperatures would increase disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food shortages in some areas (23). Exhibit 2-A presents the potential impacts of global warming.

Specific health effects associated with directly emitted GHG emissions are as follows:

Water Vapor: There are no known direct health effects related to water vapor at this time. It should be noted however that when some pollutants react with water vapor, the reaction forms a transport mechanism for some of these pollutants to enter the human body through water vapor.

Carbon Dioxide: According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIO SH) high concentrations of carbon dioxide can result in health effects such as: headaches, dizziness, restlessness, difficulty breathing, sweating, increased heart rate, increased cardiac output, increased blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and/or convulsions. It should be noted that current

Page 1741 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
17 EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT

concentrations of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere are estimated to be approximately 370 parts per million (ppm), the actual reference exposure level (level at which adverse health effects typically occur) is at exposure levels of 5,000 ppm averaged over 10 hours in a 40-hour workweek and short-term reference exposure levels of 30,000 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period (24).

Methane: Methane is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogen-containing compounds. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space (25).

Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous Oxide is often referred to as laughing gas; it is a colorless greenhouse gas.

The health effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrous oxide include dizziness, euphoria, slight hallucinations, and in extreme cases of elevated concentrations nitrous oxide can also cause brain damage (25).

Page 1742 of 3744 ends

Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis

11823-03 GHG Report
18 Fluorinated Gases: High concentrations of fluorinated gases can also result in adverse health effects such as asphyxiation, dizziness, headache, cardiovascular disease, cardiac disorders, and in extreme cases, increased mortality (24).

Aerosols: The health effects of aerosols are similar to that of other fine particulate matter. Thus aerosols can cause elevated respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as increased mortality (26).

2.6 REGULATORY SETTING

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

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention). On March 21, 1994, the U.S. joined a number of countries around the world in signing the Convention. Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

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

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

Page 1743 of 3744 ends

Upland City CouncilJune 9, 2025

Upland City Council
June 9, 2025