Yucaipa City Council
October 28, 2024

No Impact: The nearest airports are the Redlands Municipal Airport approximately 5.00 miles northwest and the Banning Municipal Airport approximately 15 miles southeast.

There are no known private airports or heliports in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site is not within an airport influence area or safety zone. Given the Project Site's distance from the airports, the Project will not create a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area. Thus, no impact would occur. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The City's General Plan Public Safety Element identifies several plans implemented to protect the community. These include the City's Master Plan of Drainage, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City's Emergency Operations Plan, and fire service planning through the City of Yucaipa Fire Department and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The proposed Project will conform with adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans.

According to Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Safety Element, Oak Glen Road is identified as a "Local Evacuation Route". The proposed Project would not impact access to users traveling along Oak Glen Road. Any impacts during construction of the Project would be temporary and short-term. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact: Impacts associated with wildland fires are also addressed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard, particularly within areas adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels. According to Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located in a Fire Safety Review Area. Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code.

As such, all proposed buildings and structures of the Project would conform to the current City fire codes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. A less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
X. Hydrology and Water Quality — Would the
ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
❑
❑
®
❑
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
❑
❑
®
❑
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
❑
❑
®
❑
on- or off -site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
❑
❑
®
❑
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
❑
❑
®
❑
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
❑
®
❑
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
❑
❑
®
❑
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
❑
❑
®
❑
groundwater management plan?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. o Chapter 8 — Public Services and Utilities
■ Figure S-2b, Floodplain Safety Overlay District
• Yucaipa General Plan Update EIR, PlaceWorks. (April 2016) o Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

• Yucaipa Municipal Code
o Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Article II. General Conditions and Prohibitions o Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Article V. Construction Requirements • FEMA Flood map Service Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed January 31, 2024.
• 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and Woodard & Curran, June 2021. o Part 2, Chapter 11 — Yucaipa Valley Water District 2020 UWMP (June 30, 2021) • Preliminary Hydrology Study TR 20372 Residential Development, Yucaipa, CA. Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. November 2020. (Appendix G) • Water Quality Management Plan for TTM 20372. Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc, August 2022. (Appendix H)
Findings of Fact: The City lies mostly within the Yucaipa Creek Watershed which is located within the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. The Yucaipa Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 40 square miles and is generally defined as the area that drains Wilson Creek and Wildwood Creek to Live Oak Canyon. The Santa Ana River is the main drainage for the Santa Ana Watershed. The City lies primarily within the Yucaipa Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin which underlies the southeastern part of the San Bernardino Valley, covering approximately 39 square miles. Dominant recharge to the subbasin occurs through: the percolation of precipitation; infiltration within the channels of overlying streams, particularly Yucaipa and Oak Glen Creeks;; underflow from the fractures within the surrounding bedrock beneath the subbasin; and artificial recharge at spreading grounds.

Flood Zones
The Project site is bounded by Oak Glen Creek designated Floodway (FW) to the east. According to Figure 5.9-4b "Flood Hazard Zones with Approved Letter of Map Revision" of the City's General Plan EIR, a majority of the Project site is located within the 100-year floodplain which is defined as an area that has a one percent chance of being inundated during a 12-month period. A Preliminary Hydrology Study for the Project was prepared by Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. dated November 2020 (Appendix G). The Hydrology Study analyzes anticipated flows to the Project site during a 10-year and 100-year storm event and recommends mitigation measures to mitigate the on and off -site flows. According to the City's General Plan, Figure S-2b "Floodplain Safety Overlay District" the Project site is not located within a dam inundation area.

Water Quality
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality in the City. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the Project by Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. dated August 2022 (Appendix H). The WQMP complies with the standard BMP requirements set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Additionally, the WQMP sets forth Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs), non- structural BMPs, Structural BMPs, and Inspection/Maintenance Responsibilities for the Project.

This plan is included as Appendix H to this document.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

Discussion of Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction phase of the Project has the potential to result in stormwater pollution from the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials, and the maintenance and operation of construction equipment including the movement of soil. As a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to provide compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria, including submittal and approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the construction phase of the Project. Additionally, the Project is required to implement the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which identifies methods to control erosion and prevent off -site discharge of pollutants during operation. Therefore, through the implementation of BMP's identified in the SWPPP and WQMP, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project will receive potable water service from Western Heights Water Company (WHWC). WHWC obtains its water via wells from locally produced groundwater from the Yucaipa Groundwater Basin, and through a wholesale agreement with the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). YVWD's water supply consists of a mix of imported water from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, groundwater from the Yucaipa Basin, San Timoteo Basin, Beaumont Basin, and San Bernardino Basin, surface water and recycled water.

According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YVWD can expect to meet future demands through 2045 for average, single dry, and multiple dry years. Additionally, as part of the Project application, the Applicant received a letter from WHWC noting that it would be able to service the proposed Project.

As the site is largely undeveloped, the proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces of the site through the development of 128 single-family residences and onsite improvements. Proposed site improvements include two (2) infiltration basins that would capture stormwater flows onsite and recharge the groundwater basin via percolation.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in groundwater recharge interference. The Project is not anticipated to generate an increased demand that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than Significant Impact: The following analysis addresses checklist items c) i) and ii) for Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project site is bound by Oak Glen Creek designated Floodway (FW) to the east and is largely undeveloped and relatively flat.

The highest point of the site is located at the northeast corner and the lowest point of the site is in the southwest corner. Existing flows along the northern and southern property lines drain east to west, and existing flows along the eastern and western property lines drain north to south resulting in flows draining in a southwest direction towards the intersection of Avenue E and 12t" Street. According to Figure S-2b, Floodplain Safety Overlay District, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site is located in an area designated as "Floodplain Review Area 1 (100 Year Flood Area)" and as such is at risk for flooding.

The proposed Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site.

However, the 14.8-acre site is largely undeveloped, and the proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces through the development of 128 single-family residences and associated improvements such as streets and sidewalks. This increase in impervious surfaces will result in an increase of onsite flows. As such, the proposed Project will implement two infiltration basins as described on pages 3-5 of the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. dated November 2020 (Appendix G). Alternative designs may be considered by the City Engineer, provided that updated plans and engineering specifications are integrated with the Project -specific SWPPP and WQMP that is required to be reviewed and approved by the City. Flows will be directed towards the basins via proposed inlets and storm drainpipes throughout the development. The two proposed basins will provide 51,759 cubic feet of volume which will decrease flows by an average of 8.00% for a 2-year storm event, 71.44% for a 10-year storm event and 18.98% for a 100-year storm event. Therefore, the proposed Project will reduce the risk and hazard of urban flooding once constructed by slowing the velocity of water flows and increasing percolation to the groundwater basin.

Adherence to the Project -specific SWPPP and WQMP would ensure that the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite during the construction and operation phases of the Project. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, regarding fugitive dust, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for wind erosion. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site, nor substantially increase the amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii) or, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
iv) impede or redirect flows?
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

Less than Significant Impact: The following analysis addresses checklist items c) iii) and iv) for Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project proposes a drainage system that will mimic the existing drainage patterns of the site and as such, would not impede or redirect flows. The proposed grading and drainage designs are anticipated to protect the proposed on -site improvements from the 100-year storm event without causing adverse impacts to the downstream drainage conditions (Appendix G). As part of the Project application, the Applicant obtained a letter from the YVWD noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located in an area designated as "Floodplain Review Area 1 (100 Year Flood Area)" according to the City's General Plan. As a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to provide compliance with NPDES criteria, including submittal and approval of a SWPPP and a WQMP, which would identify methods to retain the incremental increase in storm water flood on -site to meet historic flows, control erosion, and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. During construction and Project operation, the Project would utilize various structural and non- structural best management practices (BMPs) per the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. Based on the preceding, impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project will be served by Western Heights Water Company (WHWC) and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The City is a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permittee and participates with 20 other municipal agencies in the San Bernardino Valley region to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, students, and governments in preventing and reducing stormwater pollution. Keeping pollutants out of stormwater is an integral component of a sustainable groundwater management program. Under the MS4 permit, the City requires new development to design and implement WQMPs that meet the San Bernardino County Technical Guideline threshold. The Applicant will be required to show implementation of the various structural and non-structural BMPs where applicable, and would, therefore, not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XI. Land Use and Planning — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
❑
❑
®
❑
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
❑
❑
®
❑
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan (adopted April 11, 2016) • Submitted Project Materials
Findings of Fact: The proposed Project involves the demolition of one (1) existing building and associated improvements and the subdivision of 14.78 acres into 128 units for residential development (TTM 20372). The City does not have a separate zoning map; the land use districts map has been adopted by both resolution and ordinance as plan policy and regulatory zoning, part of the City's "one map" system. The general plan also identifies parcels with overlay districts, which must adhere to specific siting, development, or environmental regulations, which also includes the City's Specific Plans. The underlying General Plan land use designation is RS-20M.

The Applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from RS-20M to RS and to modify the Land Use Modification Overlay Districts (General Plan Figure CDL-3) to add the Starling Heights Specific Plan, and a specific plan amendment to formally adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan.

Land uses surrounding the site include residential uses to the north and south, Oak Glen Creek and residential uses to the east, and Dunlap Elementary School to the west. The Project site is located in the northeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street which are established roads within the urban, built-up environment of the surrounding area. Upon approval of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment and TTM 20372, the Project will be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. Furthermore, the proposed residential development is consistent with surrounding single family land uses and aligns with the City's housing goals.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is predominately undeveloped with one (1) single-family residence, horse corrals and associated improvements located in the southeast corner of the site. Uses surrounding the site include residential uses to the north, south and east and Dunlap Elementary School to the west. The Project site is located at the City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

northeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street, which are established public roads in the City.

The proposed general plan amendment to IRS, and Specific Plan Amendment of the Starling Heights Specific Plan are consistent with the surrounding residential uses.

The proposed Project includes the demolition of the existing single-family residence onsite and the construction of 128 two-story residences with attached 2-car garages, private backyards, community open space, an active community park and game park, two (2) detention basins for stormwater runoff, paved private roads, and on -street guest parking.

Entitlements for the Project include a general plan amendment to change the existing land use designation from RS-20M to IRS and add the specific plan to the General Plan Land Use Modification Overlay, a specific plan amendment to adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan and a TTM to subdivide the 14.78-acre site, currently consisting of four (4) parcels, for the128 single family residential units. The new single-family development will have land use designation of IRS and will be located within the Starling Heights Specific Plan. The Project site includes one (1) single family residence that will be vacated prior to Project approval and as such no established communities exist within the Project site, nor does the Project propose or require elements or operations that would divide an off -site community. Based on the preceding, the Project would not physically divide an established community and a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact: As stated above in subsection (a), the Project involves a general plan amendment, a specific plan amendment, and a TTM to subdivide the 14.78- acre site for the 128 single-family residential units. The Project site's current General Plan Land Use designation is RS-20M. The Project would involve a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from RS-20M to IRS and to add the Starling Heights Specific Plan. Upon approval of a general plan amendment by the City, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan.

Specific Plans are a tool provided under state law to carry out the goals and policies of the City's general plan and would act as the main governing policy guide to the Project area related to the site's physical development, and it includes goals, policies, and action steps necessary for orderly development and growth. In particular, the Project is generally consistent with the vision of the General Plan as the parcel is currently designated and would remain designated for single family development and would therefore not result in a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation that was specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The Project would be subject to the development standards set forth in the City's Development Code, the City's design guidelines, and the provisions of the Starling Heights Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, and/or regulation.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Mitigation
Impact
p
Incorporated
XII. Mineral Resources — Would theproject:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
❑
❑
®
❑
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
❑
❑
®
❑
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use Ian?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 o Section 3.11 — Mineral Resources
Findings of Fact: The City does not contain any nonfuel mineral resources of statewide or regional importance (PlaceWorks 2014). The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The State Geologist is responsible for classifying areas within California that are subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses. Furthermore, the State Geologist is also responsible for classifying mineral resource zones (MRZ) to record the presence or absence of significant mineral resources in the state based on CGS data.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant Impact: The City's General Plan indicates the entire City is within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource Zone 3) classification, in which the significance of mineral deposit cannot be evaluated. Therefore, the Project Site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally -or locally- important mineral resources. As the Project Site is within an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, it is unlikely that the site would be considered viable for mineral extraction. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is not located within an area designated to contain locally important mineral resources. The Project Site is within an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, identified as zone MRZ-3. The City's General CITY O- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Thus, there is a low potential for the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. A less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
pjg
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XIII. Noise — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
❑
❑
®
❑
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
❑
❑
®
❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
❑
❑
®
❑
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. o Chapter 7 — Public Safety
■ Figure S-6, Noise Hazard Overlay District
• City of Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Placeworks (April 2016) o Section 5.11 — Noise
• Yucaipa Municipal Code (current through Ord. 434)
o Division 7, Chapter 9, Section 87.0905 Noise
• Rockwell Technical Studies Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, July 17, 2023. (Appendix 1)
Findings of Fact:

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Many excessive sources of noise (e.g., freeways) are often accompanied by vibration. Noise and vibration sensitivity varies throughout the day or evening, at different locations, and among receptors. Unlike most cities in Southern California, the City of Yucaipa is far from many urban noise sources —airports, railroads, and heavy industry. Yet the City's noise and vibration environment still varies throughout the community. Interstate 10 (1-10) is the largest source of noise and vibration in the City, the contours of which extend for some distance from the freeway.

The Project site is located adjacent to residential land uses to the north, south and east, and Dunlap Elementary School to the west which are considered noise sensitive land uses in the City's General Plan. According to Table S-3 Land Use -Noise Compatibility Standards of the City's City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

General Plan, the normally acceptable community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for residential uses is an interior noise level up to 45 dBA CNEL, and an exterior noise level up to 60 dBA CNEL.

Exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA are allowed for residential uses provided levels are substantially mitigated through the reasonable use of best available noise reduction technology and interior noise does not exceed 45 dBA with windows and doors closed. According to the Construction Noise Handbook prepared by the Federal Highway Administration, at a distance of 50 feet, some heavy construction equipment can produce noise levels above 80 dBA.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is bounded by Avenue E to the south and 12th Street to the west with surrounding land uses including residential and an elementary school. Traffic from Avenue E and 121h street are the primary sources of noise in the general area of the Project site. According to the Figure S-6 Noise Hazard Overlay District of the General Plan, the Project site is located adjacent to the boundary of the 65 dBA decibel range along Avenue E and a small portion of the Project site extends into the 60 dBA range.

The Project site is largely undeveloped with a single-family residence located in the southeast corner of the Project site. The proposed Project would demolish the existing structures onsite and construct 128 two-story residences with attached 2-car garages, private backyards, community open space, a community park, a recreation center, two (2) detention basins for stormwater runoff, paved private roads, and on -street guest parking.

A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, dated July 17, 2023, using the applicable City standards and thresholds of significance based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To establish existing ambient noise level conditions in the areas surrounding the Project site, a field monitoring study was conducted at the locations shown in Figure 13-1: Noise Measurement Locations on May 10, 2023. The ambient monitored noise levels for positions L1, L2, L3 and L4 are shown in Table 13-1.

Table 13-1 24-Hour Ambient Air Noise Level Measurements Energy Average Noise Level
Location
Description
(dBA Leq)
Daytime
Nighttime
L1
Located north of the Project site near

45.5 42.2
residence at 12383 12th Street.

L2
Located east of the Project site near

48.5 47.2
residence at 12376 Cambria Drive.

L3
Located south of the Project site near

65.7 56.0
residence at 32939 Avenue E.

L4
Located west of the Project site near

59.2 51.7
Elementary School at 328270 Avenue E.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Figure 13-1 Noise Measurement Locations
A1W F
nor
LEGEND*
Site Boundary
M�asuremenr�ocarians
Construction Related Impacts
Site
4 r -
The City's Municipal Code Section 87.0905, Noise, describes that temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities are exempt noise sources between 7am and 7pm, except Sundays and Federal holidays. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (Appendix 1).

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Construction of the Project will generate temporary noise levels at the property line of the Project site. Construction noise levels will vary due to each stage of construction requiring a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others.

Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Table 13-2 presents the noise levels for construction equipment measured at four (4) construction noise receptor locations located north of the Project site (R1), east of Wilson Creek (R2), south of East Avenue (R3), and west of 121h Street (R4), see Figure 13- 2: Construction Noise Receptor Locations.
•tN
it
-figure is-z construction Noise receptor Locations
LEGEND:

L_t Si[e Boundary � Receiver Lpt3tiOnS
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Table 13-2 Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Equipment
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
dBA Le
Composite
Reference
Noise Level
dBA Le
Reference
power Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Dozer

78.0 83.4
115.1
Front End Loader

75.0 Grader

81.0 Excavator

77.0 Grading
Tractor

80.0 84.0
115.6
Scraper

80.0 Building
Construction
Crane

73.0 77.4
109.1
Backhoe

74.0 Generator <25kVA

70.0 Paver

74.0 Dump Truck

72.0 Paving

77.8 108.51
Roller

73.0 Architectural
Coating
Man Lift

68.0 76.2
107.8
Compressor air

74.0 Generator (<25 kVA)

70.0 Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. As shown on Table 13-3, the highest construction noise levels are expected to range from 58.8 to 62.2 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.

Table 13-3 Construction Equipment Noise Summary
Receiver
Construction Noise
Levels (dBA Leq)
Location
Site
Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Level
R1

61.2 61.7

55.1 55.6

53.9 61.7
R2

58.3 58.8

52.2 52.7

51.0 58.8
R3

61.7 62.2

55.6 56.1

54.4 62.2
R4

61.7 62.2

55.6 56.1

54.4 62.2
As shown in Table 13-3 above, modeled unmitigated construction noise levels reached up

62.2 dBA Leq. To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short- term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction -related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities with a maximum noise level of 62.2 dBA Leq, as shown on Table 13-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Operation Related Impacts
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

The proposed Project is considered a noise -sensitive receiving land use and is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond those typically associated with residential land uses such as people and children, parking lot activity, garage doors, air conditioners, and trash collection, which are all likely to vary throughout the day. Air conditioning units are expected to be a major source of operational noise. The Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix 1) analyzed noise impacts at four (4) noise receptors as shown in Figure 13-3. Table 13-4 presents the projected noise levels assuming the worst -case noise environment with air conditioning units all operating at the same time (Appendix 1).

Figure 13-3 Operation Analysis Receiver Locations
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Table 13-4 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Project Operational
Noise Level
Noise Level
Receiver
Noise Levels (dBA
Standards (dBA Leq)
Standards
Location
Leq)
Exceeded?
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
R1

40.0 37.3

55.0 45.0
No
No
R2

36.2 33.4

55.0 45.0
No
No
R3

39.9 37.1

55.0 45.0
No
No
R4

40.3 37.5

55.0 45.0
No
No
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project -only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Yucaipa exterior noise level standards at nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. Table 13-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with the proposed Project will satisfy the City of Yucaipa Development Code at the nearest receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise -sensitive receiver locations.

On -Site Traffic Noise Impacts
The primary sources of noise impacts to the Project site will be traffic noise from 12th Street and Avenue E. The on -site traffic noise level impacts analyzed in the Noise impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, indicates that the outdoor living areas adjacent to 12th Street and Avenue E will experience unshielded exterior noise levels ranging from 57.6 to

65.2 dBA CNEL, which exceeds the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential uses. To reduce exterior noise levels to below the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, Urban Crossroads recommends that a minimum 6-foot-high noise barrier be constructed for the outdoor living area (backyards) for lots (92, 96, 98, 100, 102) adjacent to 12th Street. With implementation of the recommended noise barrier, the future exterior noise levels will range from 57.4 to 64.0 dBA CNEL in outdoor living areas (backyards) and would not exceed the City's threshold. The proposed Project includes a block wall along the Project frontage on 12th Street and Avenue E, thus, abating the concern of the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise overlay. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a generation of a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A less than significant impact would occur.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact: Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. To analyze vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Project site, vibration -generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City's Municipal Code.

Under the City of Yucaipa's Municipal Code, Vibration Chapter 87.0910, no ground vibration is allowed which can be felt without the aid of instruments at or beyond the lot line, or which produces a particle velocity greater than or equal to two -tenths (0.2) inch per second measured at or beyond the lot line. At distances ranging from 72 to 206 feet from Project City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
OJIll
April 2024

construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from

0.004 to 0.018 in/sec PPV (Appendix 1). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration damage threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise receiver locations.

Additionally, the vibration levels reported at the receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within the boundaries of any airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Redlands Municipal Airport located approximately 5 miles northwest of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XIV. Population and Housing — Would the pro'ect:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
❑
❑
®
❑
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
❑
❑
®
❑
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
SnurcPs�
• City of Yucaipa General Plan (adopted April 11, 2016) • Yucaipa Municipal Code (current through Ord. 434)
Findings of Fact: The Project site is predominately undeveloped with one (1) single family residence, horse corrals and associated improvements located in the southeast corner of the Project site. The proposed Project will demolish the single-family residence and associated improvements and will construct 128 two-story residences. The Project consists of four (4) parcels designated and zoned as RS-20M. The Applicant proposes a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from RS-20M to RS, a specific plan amendment to adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan and a TTM to subdivide the Project site for the 128 single family residential units. The change in land use is compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north, south and east of the Property, and west of the Property is Dunlap Elementary School. Given that the geographic area is largely surrounded by residential uses, the proposed 128 residences are compatible with the overall area.

The City's Housing Element of the General Plan represents the housing plan for achieving local housing goals and compliance with applicable statutes required of all local governments when updating their housing elements. A key component to the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is an allocation of the State's projected housing needs split among the various regions and cities of California and is assigned as part of an eight - year housing cycle. The City was assigned an RHNA of 2,866 housing units for the current 6th Housing Cycle, which was incorporated in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element adopted on September 12, 2022. This Housing Element includes housing programs that the City will implement to achieve the element's goals, policies, and objectives. Program 19, Planned Development and/or Specific Plans, would generally apply to the proposed Project, as well as Program 20, Small Lot Subdivision.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact: The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) states growth - inducing impacts are not assumed to be beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment, but that a proposed project should be assessed on how it could foster economic growth or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Project would directly introduce a new population to the Project site through the construction of 128 residences resulting in 8.7 du/ac on the 14.78- acre site. The Project site has a land use and zoning designation of RS-20M which permits single-family residential units on 20,000 square foot minimum lots. Upon approval of a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from RS-20M to RS (Single Residential), a specific plan amendment to adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan and approval of TTM 20372, the proposed Project is in accordance with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation and the City's zoning ordinance.

Project implementation would result in the construction of 128 two-story residences and would therefore meet the need for additional housing in the community to accommodate planned population growth in the City and be one additional project that could help the City in achieving its RHNA obligations. The Project is consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan to facilitate and encourage responsible housing development in a responsible manner as the Project is aligned with the planned population growth of the site according to the General Plan. The Project would include infrastructure improvements such as paving along the Project frontage, constructing a new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. These improvements would be concentrated to the immediate surroundings of the Project site and are unlikely to encourage unanticipated population growth in the surrounding area. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to induce substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly is considered less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact: One (1) single-family residence with horse corrals and associated infrastructure currently exists in the southeast corner of the Project site. The existing residence onsite would be vacated by the property owner that resides in the residence prior to Project approval. Based on the preceding, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Potentially
SiLess Than gnificant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
XV. Public Services — Would theproject:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
ii) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
iv) Parks?
❑
❑
®
❑
v) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
®
❑
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
S�urces�
City of Yucaipa General Plan adopted April 11, 2016.
o Chapter 8 — Public Services and Utilities
Yucaipa General Plan Update EIR, PlaceWorks (April 2016) Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Fire services in the City are provided by the Yucaipa Fire Department, which contracts service from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The Project site is served by Crafton Station No. 2, located at 32664 Yucaipa Blvd, approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the Project site. Additional City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

services in the vicinity are the Wildwood Fire Station No. 3, located 1.7 miles southeast of the Project and the CAL FIRE Station No.1 located approximately 3 miles northeast of the Project Site. Thus, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant. ii) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Police protection services to the Project site are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. The Project site is served by the City of Yucaipa Police Station, located at 34144 Yucaipa Blvd, approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast of the Project Site. The proposed Project includes 128 two-story residences with attached 2-car garages, private backyards, community open space, an active community park and game park, two (2) detention basins for stormwater runoff, paved private roads, and on -street guest parking. The Project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate police protection services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District (YCJUSD) provides school services to all of the City and the northern portion of the City of Calimesa. YCJUSD has six elementary schools (Grades K-6 or K-8), two middle schools (Grades 6-8 or 7-8), and one high school (Grades 9-12). YCJUSD also has one dependent International Baccalaureate charter school (Grades K-8), a continuation high school (Grades 9-12), a special education success program (Grades K-12), and an adult continuing education program. The nearest surrounding schools to the Project site are Dunlap Elementary School located west of 12th Street, Yucaipa High School located approximately 0.29 miles north, and Valley Elementary School located approximately

0.79 miles east of the Project site.

The proposed Project would create a direct demand for public school services, as the Project includes the construction of 128 two-story residences. Upon approval of a general plan amendment to change the land use designation of the site from RS-20M to IRS and a specific plan amendment to adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan, the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. According to Table 5.13-6 of the Yucaipa General Plan Update Draft EIR, the YCJUSD would have adequate capacity for students generated by the buildout of the City's General Plan; the increase in residential capacity would represent a nominal change relative to the overall growth planned for the City. In addition, the YCJUSD has acknowledged through a variety of community meetings that the current school enrollment has been decreasing due to the aging city population and that opportunities for attainable family -oriented housing would help bring students to the district. Therefore, the demand for public school services as a result of Project implementation is planned and accounted for in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, Project impacts would be incremental and would be offset through City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Development Impact Fees for schools pursuant to SB 50. As the proposed Project will be in accordance with the land use designation of the Project site upon approval of a general plan amendment and specific plan amendment, the Project would not result in an unplanned demand for public school services. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to schools or impact school service ratios and impacts on schools would be less than significant.
iv-v) Parks and Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project includes community open space, an active community park and a game play park. There is the potential for the proposed Project to increase a demand for public park facilities as it would introduce 128 new residences to the Project site. However, the demand for public parks would be planned given the proposed Project will be in conformance with the General Plan upon approval of a general plan amendment and specific plan amendment. Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Recreational facility Development Impact Fees paid by the Applicant would go to park facilities for the future capital needs of parks. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect parks and public facilities with the requirement of Development Impact Fees and a less than significant impact would occur.

Demand for public facilities is generated by the population within a facility's service area.

The Project would introduce planned population growth and therefore would create a demand for public facilities/services, such as libraries. The San Bernardino County Library System (SBCLS) provides library services to the City and Yucaipa Branch Library is located at 12040 5th Street in Yucaipa and is approximately 1.6 miles northeast from the Project site. The City uses Development Impact Fees from residential uses to fund the above -mentioned library facilities to offset impacts caused to public facilities as a result of population growth. Therefore, with the payment of Development Impact Fees, the Project would not adversely affect public facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XVI. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
❑
❑
®
❑
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
❑
❑
®
❑
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

City of Yucaipa General Plan (adopted April 11, 2016)
o Chapter 4 — Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Yucaipa General Plan Update, Volume I: EIR, PlaceWorks (April 2016) California Government Code § 66477
Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would construct 128 two-story residences on a 14.78-acre site resulting in 8.7 dwelling units per acre. The Project site has a land use designation of RS-20M which permits single-family residence on a 20,000 square foot minimum lot. The proposed Project includes a general plan amendment to change the existing land use designation from RS-20M to RS. The nearest parks to the Project site are the 13th Street Sports Complex located at 11937 131h Street, and the 7th Street Park located at 12385 7th Street in Yucaipa, approximately .42 miles northwest and

1.1 miles east, respectively, of the Project site. A future Dunlap Park is also planned for the southwest corner of Avenue E and Oak Glen Road, approximately .04 miles southeast of the Project site. In accordance with the Chapter 15.08 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, the Applicant will be required to pay Development Impact Fees per dwelling unit to the City. Recreational facility Development Impact Fees provide the City the means to finance adequate recreational facilities within its jurisdiction. The Project may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks through the new residential development, however the planned population growth of the site is in conformance with the General Plan upon approval of a general plan amendment, and the nominal increase in the City's buildout accounted for in the Yucaipa General Plan EIR. In addition, the proposed Project will provide recreation amenities for the benefit of the residents. Therefore, any potential City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact: The Applicant proposes to construct 128 residences and associated improvements including community open space, an active community park and a game park. Though the Project would generate a population that may increase the utilization of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, the payment of Development Impact Fees would offset any potential impacts to existing facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. The Project does not include any new off -site recreation facilities, nor the expansion of any existing off -site recreational facilities. Thus, environmental effects related to the use, construction, or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Less than a significant impact on recreational facilities would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XVII. Trans ortation/Traffic — Would theproject:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
❑
❑
®
❑
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
❑
❑
®
❑
section 15064.3, subdivision b ?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
❑
❑
❑
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
®
❑
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. o Chapter 6 — Transportation
■ Figure T-1, Transportation Network
o Chapter 7 — Public Safety
■ Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes
• City of Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, PlaceWorks (April 2016) o Section 5.15 — Transportation/Traffic
• City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, FEHR PEERS, August 2020. • 121" Street and Avenue E Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Yucaipa, California.

TJW Engineering, Inc. February 9, 2023. (Appendix J)
• 12t" Street and Avenue E Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. TJW Engineering, Inc. June 6, 2023. (Appendix K)
Findings of Fact: The proposed Project includes the development of 128 single-family residences on approximately 14.8 acres located in the northeast corner of 12th Street and Avenue E. The Project site is largely undeveloped and includes a single-family residence and horse corrals located in the southeast corner that will be demolished during the construction phase of the Project. Proposed site improvements include a private street system in the residential development, installation of walkways, new driveway entrances on Avenue E and 1211 Street, the installation of drought tolerant landscaping, and two (2) infiltration basins on the southern perimeter of the site abutting Avenue E. Access to the Project will be provided via one (1) full access driveway on Avenue E and one (1) full access driveway on 12t" Street. According to Figure T-1: Transportation Network of the General Plan, Avenue E is classified as a Secondary Highway (Arterial) south of the Project site, and as a Controlled/Limited Access Collector west of the Avenue E and 12th Street Intersection. Surrounding uses include single-family residences and an elementary school. The Project site is within walkable distance to Dunlap Elementary School, City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Yucaipa High School, the 13th Street Sports Complex, and is located 0.37 miles south of the Yucaipa Boulevard bus stop.

Performance Standards
Beginning July 1, 2020, agencies analyzing the transportation impacts of new projects mustlook at a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. A VMT assessment for the Project was prepared on June 6, 2023, by TJW Engineering, Inc. in accordance with the City's guidelines for VMT analysis and using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) (Appendix K).

Senate Bill (SB) 743
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is the State mandated performance metric for environmental analyses pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to describe the overall amount of travel in the city based on distance and is directly related to fuel consumption, air pollution, and GHG emissions. VMT is defined as the total mileage traveled by all vehicles.

Although VMT relates specifically to automobiles, it is able to capture the effects of development patterns such as land use mix and density along with transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements by reflecting their impacts on vehicle trip generation and trip lengths. Efforts to reduce VMT may include locating housing and jobs near transit stations, implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as commute trip reduction programs, transit system improvements, or providing facilities for modes of transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Introducing a greater mix of land uses can also reduce VMT in that residents may have better access to resources and opportunities such as entertainment, shopping, parks and recreation, and jobs, thus reducing the length of their trips. In accordance with SB 743, the City established the City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2020) that include VMT thresholds of significance and VMT screening thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA.

Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operations and quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. Level of service grades range from 'A' to `F', with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing extremely congested and restricted operations. Six LOS grades are used to address the level of service afforded by roads.

A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project to analyze traffic conditions as a result of the operations associated with the Project in accordance with the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines (Appendix J). These findings, while not considered as an environmental concern under CEQA, provide additional context towards potential improvements to adjoining roadways that may be needed.

Congestion Management Plan
San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) prepares a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) to monitor the performance of the regional transportation system, develop programs that address congestion and improve air quality, and integrate transportation and land use City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

planning. The CMP designates LOS standards for the regionally significant roadways, identifies performance metrics for multimodal transportation systems, identifies standards for transit routing and frequency, and provides a consistent method for analyzing impacts of land uses on the transportation system.

The City implements the CMP land use/ transportation analysis program, participates in monitoring programs, and assesses improvements and costs required to mitigate potential impacts to the CMP network. In the City of Yucaipa, the following roadways are identified by SANBAG as being part of the regional CMP network:
• Bryant Street and Oak Glen Road
• Bryant Street and Yucaipa Boulevard
• Bryant Street and Wildwood Canyon Road
• Bryant Street and County Line Road
• Oak Glen Road and Yucaipa Boulevard
• 14th Street and Yucaipa Boulevard
Complete Streets Act of 2008
General plans of California cities and counties are required under the Complete Streets Act to include planning for complete streets: that is, streets that meet the needs of all users of the roadway, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of public transit, motorists, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS identifies multimodal transportation investments, includes bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high-speed rail, active transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management strategies, transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high -occupancy vehicle lanes, high -occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies, aviation and airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system.

The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network.

The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas, provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit, abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike and pursue other forms of active transportation, and preserve more of the region's remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecasted development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data. The Projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. Therefore, the proposed Project City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact: Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use.

Currently, the subject property is largely vacant with one (1) single-family residence and horse corrals located in the southeast corner of the site. The proposed Project would replace the existing use with 128 single-family residences. Direct access to the Project site is provided via one (1) 44-foot-wide driveway off 12th street and one (1) 42-foot-wide driveway off Avenue E. Access to the Project accommodates passenger vehicles and emergency vehicles entering and exiting the site.

Construction Related Impacts
The Project is not expected to have significant impacts to the circulation system around the Project site. Construction of the Project would generate additional temporary traffic on the existing area roadway network. These new vehicle trips would include construction workers traveling to the site as well as delivery trips associated with construction equipment and materials. Delivery of construction materials to the site would likely require oversize vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction -related traffic (including construction workers) would temporarily increase VMT traffic volumes traveling on local roadways and intersections.

Once materials are delivered to the site, all construction activities and staging of construction vehicles would occur on -site within the existing boundaries. Lane closures are not anticipated, and Project construction is not anticipated to substantially disrupt area traffic or cause a significant increase in daily traffic on area roadways or at local intersections, thereby adversely affecting existing conditions. Per standard construction procedures, the construction contractor would prepare and implement a traffic control plan to ensure that public safety and emergency access are maintained during the construction phase.

Implementation of the traffic control plan would ensure that existing conditions are not adversely affected or substantially degraded by Project construction. Therefore, construction effects would have a less than significant impact.

Operation Related Impacts
Senate Bill (SB) 743 Consistency
A VMT Analysis was prepared for the Project by TJW Engineering using the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and the SBTAM (Appendix K). A significant VMT impact generated by a project would occur if the baseline or cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeded the County of San Bernardino thresholds. Additionally, if a City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

project resulted in an increase of cumulative link -level boundary VMT per service population within the City, compared to a no project scenario, then a significant impact would occur.

Based on the City's average 2.75 persons per single-family household identified in the City's 2016 General Plan Update, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a population of 352 people (128 dwelling units multiplied by 2.75 persons). According to the Project's VMT Analysis, the Project site is located within a low VMT-generating area identified as Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 53847102. The Project's population was analyzed in the Project's TAZ for both 2016 and 2040 models. As shown in Table 17-1 VMT Analysis of Project Impacts, the baseline and cumulative project generated VMT per service population was below the County -wide baseline thresholds. Additionally, the Project -generated cumulative City-wide link level VMT per service population was determined to be 14.10 and is less than the City- wide link level VMT per service population of 14.4. Family -oriented residential development would be located within walking distance to Dunlap Elementary School, Yucaipa High School, the commercial corridor along Yucaipa Boulevard, the 13th Street sports complex, and a bus stop along Yucaipa Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact and would not conflict with SB 743.

Table 17-1 VMT Analysis for Project Impacts
2016
2040
2023
Project VMT/Service Population

29.8 29.7

29.8 Baseline Threshold'

33.4 Exceed Baseline Threshold?
NO
NO
NO
Cumulative Threshold'

35.3 Exceed Cumulative Threshold?
NO
NO
NO
'SBCTA VMT Screening Tool
Roadway System
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Project by TJW Engineering, Inc. dated February 9, 2023 (Appendix J). To determine potential circulation deficiencies as a result of the proposed Project, a LOS intersection analysis was performed at seven (7) intersections within the Project vicinity. Table 17-2, Summary of Transportation Deficiencies at Study Intersections, summarizes the results of the LOS analysis based on the City's TIA thresholds.

Table 17-2 Summary of Transportation Deficiencies at Study Intersections #
Intersection
Opening Year
(2025) with
Project
Operational
Improvements
Required?
1 13th Street
Avenue E
Deficient
Yes
2 12th Street
Yucaipa Boulevard
Deficient
Yes
3 12th Street
Avenue D
Not Deficient
No
4 12th Street
Avenue E
Not Deficient
No
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
OJIll
April 2024

5 Oak Glen Road
Avenue E
Not Deficient
No
6 12th street
Project Driveway
Not Deficient
No
7 Project Driveway
Avenue E
Not Deficient
No
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,207 daily trips with 90 AM peak hour trips and 120 PM peak hour trips (Appendix J). The City has established a LOS "C" or better as acceptable LOS for all intersections and roadway segments within the City. Under existing and opening year conditions without the proposed Project, the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the intersection at 121h Street and Yucaipa Boulevard (LOS F/D). Upon opening year with the proposed Project, the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during AM and PM peak hours except for the intersections at 13th Street and Avenue E (LOS D, AM peak hour only) and 12th Street and Yucaipa Boulevard (LOS F/D). Deficiencies at the intersections of 13th Street and Avenue E, and 121h Street and Yucaipa Boulevard will require operational improvements to ensure the intersections operate at a LOS C or better consistent with the City's TIA guidelines and the City's General Plan Policy T-2.1. Therefore, improvements will be implemented at these intersections to reduce the operational impacts to the roadway system. These improvements would not generate new environmental impacts as they pertain to striping modifications to existing roadways.

Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project is located in an urban, built-up environment and the nearest transit stops to the Project site are located at the Yucaipa Boulevard and 12th Street intersection, approximately

0.37 miles north of the Project site. The Project would not impede access to these transit stops or surrounding stops. The Project will include sidewalks along the Project frontage on 12th Street and Avenue E, which is consistent with the existing sidewalk at the Project site.

According to Figure T-2 of the General Plan, Avenue E and 12th Street are identified as Class III Bike Routes and the proposed Project would not impede access to these bike routes. Therefore, impacts related to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Separate improvements will be implemented for compliance with the City's General Plan.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) pertains to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and whether a land use project will generate vehicle miles traveled in excess of an applicable threshold of significance. In August 2020, the City established guidelines for analyzing VMT impacts and thresholds of significance for the purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. As described above in section "a," the Project would result in VMT per service population that is below the County baseline and cumulative thresholds. The Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b). A less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The Project is located in the northeast corner of 12th Street and Avenue E. The streets and intersections surrounding the Project site are designed to accommodate the anticipated levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity and have historically been accommodating residential activities at the Project site and within the Project vicinity. Direct access to the site will be provided by one (1) proposed driveway on 12th Street and one (1) proposed driveway on Avenue E. The Project circulation pattern is subject to City review and approval and thus, will conform with local, state, and federal regulations regarding circulation and traffic pattern design. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. No Impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would be compatible with the design and operation of the street network and would not result in any major modifications to the existing circulation features. Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full -access driveway on 12th street and one (1) full -access driveway on Avenue E.

Onsite driveways and parking would be designed in accordance with the City's Engineering and Fire Department standards and would include adequate driveway widths for first responder and emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required to reduce environmental impacts related to traffic pursuant to CEQA. However, the following physical improvements shall be required as a Condition of Approval.

Intersection Improvements
The Project shall incorporate the following operational intersection improvements identified on page 9 of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. dated February 9, 2023 (Appendix J):
13th Street / Avenue E
Restripe westbound approach to provide a shared left -through lane and a right turn lane.

This requires "No Parking" designations along the north side of Avenue E from the westbound limit line to 100 feet east of the westbound limit line. 121h Street / Yucaipa Boulevard
Restripe northbound approach to provide a left turn lane and a shared through -right turn lane.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources — Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred lace, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
❑
®
❑
❑
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1 k , or
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code section
❑
®
❑
❑
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. o Chapter 4 — Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space
• Yucaipa General Plan EIR, PlaceWorks (April 2016)
o Section 5.5 — Cultural Resources
• City of Yucaipa Municipal Code
o Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3. Cultural Resources Preservation (CP) Overlay District, Section 85.030315 Development Standards
• Cultural Resources Assessment for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project, City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California (C-0478), Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM), July 21, 2023. (Appendix C)
• Extended Phase I Survey Rockwell TTM 20372 Project, City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California, Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM), February 2024. (Appendix D).

Findings of Fact: As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.1, 21080.3.1, and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources. This law does not preclude agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with their jurisdictions.

CITY O- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.1(d), a lead agency is required to provide formal notification of intended development Projects to Native American tribes that have requested to be on the lead agency's list for receiving such notification. The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the Project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation for tribal cultural resources. The City sent out letters of notification to tribes that are traditionally and/or culturally affiliated with the Project area or have specifically requested notice for all projects within the City. The City received a request from the Yuhaaviatam San Manuel Nation (YSMN) on March 6, 2023, for more information regarding the Project including the Cultural Report, Geotechnical Report and Project plans showing depths of ground disturbance.

A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the Project and identified the village of Yukaipa't, a prehistoric habitation site, as located 0.1-mile east of the Project site. Based on the Project's site proximity to the village site, YSMN requested an Extended Phase I Assessment (XPI) (Appendix D) to assess whether the prehistoric village site extended into the proposed Project site. The XPI included field excavations that occurred over a two-day period on January 10-11, 2024, with a representative of YSMN present. Based on records search data, historical maps and aerial photographs, field survey, and the lack of cultural resources paired with the history of soil disturbances observed during background research and XPI excavations, it was concluded that the Project site has low sensitivity at the surface for cultural resources and a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historic era cultural resources.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project Site is designated for residential uses and is heavily disturbed due to plowing and grading activities that have taken place since at least the 1950's. According to Figure PR-6 Cultural and Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Overlay Districts of the General Plan, the Project site is located within a "Cultural Sensitivity Area". The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, analyzed the Project site for CRHR-eligible cultural resources and did not identify any prehistoric or historic cultural resources (Appendix C). Due to Project site's proximity to a prehistoric village site, an XPI was prepared and excavation work occurred with a YSMN representative present. The XPI concluded that the Project site has a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic era cultural resources (Appendix D).

However, if intact and potentially significant subsurface resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CULA will be implemented to determine CRHR eligibility.

No tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), have been identified or associated with the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources as it does not meet the criteria for listing of historical resources in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project site does not contain any known resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No historic resources on the Project site are listed in the City's General Plan. The Project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) as it does not meet the criteria for listing.

Additionally, the property has been heavily disturbed by plowing and grading activities.

In the event that unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR's) are encountered, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be implemented to ensure construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall halt. Additionally, if Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems — Would theproject:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
❑
❑
®
❑
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
❑
❑
®
❑
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
❑
❑
®
❑
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
❑
❑
®
❑
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reductiongoals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
❑
❑
®
❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Rni irrac-
• City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • City of Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, PlaceWorks (April 2016) o Section 5.16 — Utilities and Service Systems
• 2022 California Gas Report. California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 • Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a.
• Frequently Asked Questions. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019b.
• Yucaipa Valley Water District Preliminary Project Service Evaluation TR 20372 — 128 Units, February 6, 2024.
• 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and Woodard & Curran, June 2021. o Part 2, Chapter 11 — Yucaipa Valley Water District 2020 UWMP (June 30, 2021) City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Findings of Fact: The Project site is largely vacant with a single-family residence and horse corrals located in the southeast corner of the site. The proposed Project would demolish the existing structures onsite and subdivide the Project site for 128 single family residential units. The Project consists of infrastructure improvements such as installing water lines and sewer lines throughout the site, connecting to the water mainline in 121h Street, connecting to a sewer manhole in Avenue E, providing fire sprinkler service, and connection to electrical service from existing public utilities on Avenue E and 12th Street.

Domestic Water
Water services are provided to the City by four (4) water purveyors: Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD), South Mesa Mutual Water Company, Western Heights Water Company (WHWC) and Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department. The Project site is located in the service boundaries of WHWC which receives its water from groundwater wells, a wholesale agreement with YVWD, and a small amount from the State Water Project via facilities owned and operated by the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD).

Wastewater Treatment
The Project site is located in the service boundaries of the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) wastewater facilities. Wastewater generated at the site would be treated at the Wochholz Regional Water Recycling Facility (WRWRF). WRWRF has a current treatment capacity of 6.67 million gallons per day (mgd) with expansion to 8.0 mgd.

Solid Waste
Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act, requires that every California city divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Under AB 939, local jurisdictions are required to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. Local jurisdictions are mandated to divert at least 50% of their solid waste generation into recycling which the City has achieved through a range of source reduction, recycling and resident and business focused programs. The Project would be required to submit plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure the plan would comply with AB 939. In addition, the state has set a goal of 75% recycling, composting, and source reduction of solid waste by 2020. To help reach this goal, the state has adopted AB 1826 mandatory organic recycling, and appropriate provisions for AB 1828 are listed in the City's Standard Conditions of Approval.

Electric Power
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the site. Project power uses are anticipated to include those typically associated with residential uses (indoor/outdoor lighting, appliances, air conditioning, etc.). All electrical uses associated with the Project would connect to the existing electric power system along Avenue E and 12th Street.

Natural Gas
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

Natural gas is provided to the site by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and would supply the proposed Project as well. Natural gas is often used for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and hot water heaters. SoCalGas's 2022 California Gas Report (CGR) projects the total system demand to decline at an annual rate of 1.5% between 2022 and 2035.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact:

Water Demand Impacts
The proposed Project includes the construction of a public water system onsite that will connect to the existing water mainline in 12th Street per WHWC specifications. Water demands from the proposed Project will be similar to similar residential land uses in the surrounding area. Project water demands will not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Wastewater Treatment Impacts
The Project site is located in the service boundaries of YVWD wastewater facilities. The proposed Project includes the construction of a public sewer system and wastewater collection system that would connect to existing wastewater utilities in Avenue E.

Wastewater generated on the Project site would be transported to the WRWRF located in the southwestern portion of the City. WRWRF is required to comply with treatment requirements specified in the NPDES permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Project would generate similar types and amounts of municipal wastewater that are currently generated throughout the City by similar residential land uses. The Project will implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) ensuring that the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. With the implementation of the Stormwater Quality Control Measures outlined in the WQMP, the Project would not require a unique wastewater treatment process or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. A less than significant impact would occur.

Electric Power Impacts
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the site. Project power uses are anticipated to include those typically associated with residential uses (indoor/outdoor lighting, appliances, air conditioning, etc.). All electrical uses associated with the Project would connect to the existing electric power system onsite and along 12th Street and Avenue E. Further, all utility connections to the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to electric power City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

supply. Therefore, relocation and expansion of existing facilities and construction of new facilities would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Impacts
Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). Natural gas would be used for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and hot water heaters. SoCalGas's 2022 California Gas Report (CGR) projects the total system demand to decline at an annual rate of 1.5% between 2022 and 2035. Since demand for natural gas is decreasing, Project development would not require SoCalGas to obtain new or expanded electricity or natural gas supplies and impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunication Facilities Impacts
Various private services, including AT&T, Time Warner, and Frontier Communications, provide telecommunication services to the City, including the Project site. No changes to telecommunication facilities would occur. Therefore, Project development would not require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact: WHWC provides potable and domestic water to the Project site. WHWC receives its water supply from the Yucaipa Groundwater Basin and through a wholesale agreement with YVWD. YVWD's water supply is made up from a mix of imported water from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, groundwater from the Yucaipa Groundwater Basin, San Timoteo Basin, Beaumont Basin and San Bernardino Basin and, recycled water. Table 19-1 describes data from the 2020 YVWD UWMP which shows that YVWD's water supplies for base years for average, single dry, and multiple dry years are sufficient in meeting historical water demands (UWMP, 2020).

Table 19-1 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet) 2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Supply Totals
59,180
65,400
72,700
78,950
85,300
First Year
Demand Totals
12,658
12,026
11,430
10,872
10,346
Difference
46,522
53,374
61,270
68,078
74,954
Supply Totals
55,261
61,000
67,000
68,000
69,000
Second Year
Demand Totals
11,696
11,256
10,744
10,470
9,994
Difference
43,565
49,744
56,256
57,530
59,006
Supply Totals
55,888
58,000
64,000
65,000
66,000
Third Year
Demand Totals
10,807
10,536
10,100
10,082
9,654
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Difference
45,081
47,464
53,900
54,918
56,346
Supply Totals
56,861
55,000
61,000
62,000
63,000
Fourth Year
Demand Totals
9,986
9,862
9,494
9,706
9,326
Difference
46,875
45,135
51,506
52,291
53,674
Supply Totals
55,104
52,000
58,000
59,000
60,000
Fifth Year
Demand Totals
9,227
9,230
8,924
9,350
9,009
Difference
45,877
42,770
49,076
49,650
50,991
As illustrated in Table 19-1, YVWD water demands can be met under multiple dry years and thus, can meet the demands of the proposed Project. Additionally, as part of the Project application process, the Applicant has received a will -serve letter for water services from WHWC. Future water supply will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. WHWC has sufficient water resources available to supply water service to the Property. Therefore, impacts associated with water supply availability would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project received a Preliminary Project Service Evaluation on February 6, 2024, from YVWD stating that the Project will receive sewer service from YVWD upon completion and testing of onsite sewer infrastructure pursuant to YVWD approved plans and requirements (Appendix L). Wastewater generated on the Project site would be transported to the WRWRF located in the southwestern portion of the City. WRWRF has a current treatment capacity of 6.67 million gallons per day (mgd) with expansion to 8.0 mgd. The Project would generate similar types and amounts of municipal wastewater that are currently generated throughout the City by similar residential land uses. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact: Locally produced solid waste is collected in the City through a contract agreement and is disposed of at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill.

The San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill has an average annual capacity of 500,000 to 730,999 tons per year and has a remaining capacity of over 21.4 million yards. Burrtec is the City's contracted franchise hauler and supports residential uses with meeting the State's recycling requirements through recycling and organic waste disposal. Consistent with the City's solid waste reduction goals, the Project would be required to comply with Title 8, Chapter 8.28 of the City's Municipal Code which requires all new development to subscribe to waste and recycling services through the City's contracted franchise hauler. Based on the CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates chart, the Project would generate approximately 1,280 pounds of solid waste per day (see Table 19-1).

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjg
April 2024

Table 19-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Waste Generation
Dwelling Units
Generation Rate,
pounds per day
Per dwelling unit
Total
Source
Single -Family
128
10 pounds
1,280 (lbs/day)
Residence
Source: CalRec cle, 2019b, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates(ca. ov As shown in Table 19-1, the estimated waste generated by the proposed Project would be nominal compared with the existing capacity of the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill.

The residential uses proposed by the Project, and solid waste generated by those uses, would not conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals is less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project would be implemented and operated in compliance with applicable City General Plan Goals and Policies, and would comport with City Zoning regulations —specifically, the Project would comply with local, state, and federal initiatives and directives acting to reduce and divert solid waste from landfill waste streams. As described in section (d) above, the Project would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County, and City statues and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
XX. Wildfire — If located in or near a State Responsibility Area ("SRA"), lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, or other hazardous fire areas that may be designated by the Fire Chief, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
❑
❑
®
❑
evacuation Ian?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
❑
❑
®
❑
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
❑
❑
®
❑
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
❑
❑
®
❑
runoff, post -fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:
• City of Yucaipa General Plan (adopted April 11, 2016) • Submitted Project Materials
Findings of Fact: Wildland fire is a critical concern in the City. Expansive open areas are susceptible to destructive wildland fires, which can be exacerbated by dry weather and Santa Ana winds. The National Fire Plan designates the City as a "community at risk" of high wildland fire hazard. (CAL FIRE 2014) Vegetation fuel types in the City include annual grasses and a variety of brush with low fuel moisture that are highly susceptible to and capable of carrying fire.

Responsibility for wildland fire prevention and suppression includes the city, state, and federal government. The federal government has the primary responsibility for Wildwood Canyon, Yucaipa Hills, and the National Forest. These "federal responsibility areas" (FRA) total 8% of the acreage within the City and its sphere of influence. Areas where the State of California has primary responsibility (called "State Responsibility Areas" or "SRA") comprise 17%, primarily in the Crafton Hills and El Dorado Ranch Park. Local responsibility areas comprise most of the developed areas in the City. According to CAL FIRE, half of the City is designated as a very high fire severity zone City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

(VHFZ) based on fuels, terrain, and weather. These lands are characterized by fire -prone land cover - primarily valley grasslands, mixed chaparral, and shrub communities. According to the City's General Plan, the Project site is in the Fire Safety Review Area 2 (FR2) which is categorized as land that is relatively flat and is either partially or completely developed, or, if it is not developed, is usually suitable for development. Present and future development within an FR2 will be exposed to the impacts of wildland fires and other natural hazards due to its close proximity to Fire Safety Review Area 1 (FR1) areas.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact: Oak Glen Road is designated as a "Local Evacuation Route" on Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element.

Additionally, the Project Site is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of a "Very High Fire Severity Zone", identifying lands that are vulnerable to fire. A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed Project would substantially impair emergency access requirements of the City of Yucaipa Fire Department and CAL FIRE or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the Project Site or adjacent uses. Development of the proposed Project would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way along Oak Glen Road. Given the location of the "Very High Fire Severity Zone" and the fire stations, impacts to emergency access would not be temporarily impaired during construction while contractor access to the Project site would be provided by Oak Glen Road. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is in a relatively flat area, and there are no steep slopes immediately adjacent to the site where high winds can exacerbate wildfire risks. The Project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of an urban landscape. Wind patterns across the region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season (Appendix A). No wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the site. Development of the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope and prevailing winds, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project site is predominantly vacant, undeveloped, and requires the installation of associated infrastructure such as driveways, roadways, sidewalks, gutters, the installation of both wet and dry utilities, including domestic water, sanitary sewer, and electricity. As discussed in section (b) above, the proposed residential City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024

development would adhere to a wide range of state and local codes including the California Fire Code, CAL FIRE safe fire design requirements, City and Public Works Standards.

Although the Project will include infrastructure improvements, these improvements would be concentrated in the immediate surroundings of the Project site, would adhere to state and local codes, and are unlikely to exacerbate fire risk. As such a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact: According to the General Plan the Project site is located in Floodplain Review Area 1 (100-year flood area) which includes areas subject to potential flooding during a 100-year rain event. The proposed Project would be required to meet federal floodplain regulations. Furthermore, the Project would adhere to state and local codes during Project construction and implementation. Finally, the Project site is a relatively flat parcel that would not be subject to post -fire slope instability. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, a less than significant impact would occur.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page100

Potentially
Less Than
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
p
Incorporated
Impact
p
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
❑
®
❑
❑
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California History or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of a
❑
❑
®
❑
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Impacts
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California History or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The Project site is located within a developed area that contains residential uses and a school. The proposed Project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife, or habitat for any sensitive species.

As described in Section V. Cultural Resources and XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources, adverse impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. Construction -phase procedures would be implemented if any cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Furthermore, the analysis provided in Section III. Air Quality and Vill. Greenhouse Gas City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fjiii
April 2024
Page101

emissions concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants, climate change, and other air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to Sections I through XX, no evidence is presented that the proposed Project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact: Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed Project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public systems, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long-term impacts, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics involved with the proposed Project.

Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with other approved or pending projects in the region, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Where appropriate, the environmental checklist questions above include discussion regarding cumulative impacts of the Project when developed in conjunction with related projects. As concluded throughout the analysis, the proposed Project would include both operation- and construction -related Project components whose adherence to applicable regulations would ensure that the Project's incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Furthermore, the Project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts would be considered less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact: Based on the analysis of the Project's impacts in the responses to Sections I through XX, there is no indication that this Project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction, these would be less than significant. There are no long- term effects related to traffic, noise, hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, increased demand for water use, wastewater disposal, and electricity use, or increased demand on emergency response services. Environmental effects would result in less than significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
IVInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PJg
April 2024
Page102

CHAPTER FOUR - MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation measures are included within each section of the initial study checklist and are provided below. Table 22-: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program outlines the potential impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed Project and assigns responsibility for the oversight of each mitigation measure. This Table shall be included in all bid documents and included as a part of the Project development.

Table 22-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section
Number
Mitigation Measures
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing
Impact after
Mitigation
Biological Resources
IV. Biological
BIO-1 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey
City of Yucaipa
Prior to
Less than
Resources
and Applicant.
construction.
significant.

If construction occurs during the nesting bird
season (February 1st through August 31 st),a one -
day Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine
the presence/absence of ground nesting birds. The
location, and status of any active nests on or
directly adjacent to the Project Site will be
determined by this survey. If active nest(s) are
located, the extent of the survey buffer area
surrounding the nest should be established by the
qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect
effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the
destruction of active nests and to protect the
reproductive success of birds protected by the
MBTA and the CFGC, the nesting bird survey shall
occur no earlier than seven (7) days prior to the
commencement of construction. In the event active
nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to
be determined by the biologist) shall be established
or
City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page103

Section
Mitigation Measures
Responsible for
Timing
Impact after
Number
Monitoring
Mitigation
around such active nests, and no construction
within the buffer allowed, until the biologist has
determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e.,
the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant
on the nest).

Cultural Resources
V. Cultural
CUL-1 Inadvertent Archaeological Finds
City of Yucaipa
During ground
Less than
Resources
and Applicant.
disturbing
significant.

If intact and potentially significant subsurface
activities.
deposits are encountered during ground disturbing
activities, all activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an on -site inspection shall
be performed by a qualified archaeologist, to
assess the find, determine its significance under
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
eligibility, and make recommendations for
appropriate mitigation measures. To reduce
impacts to historical resources to a level of less
than significant, data recovery or other treatments
of eligible deposits may be required.

If human remains are encountered, State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall
notify the NAHC, which shall determine and notify
City of Yucaipa
"TY°F Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page104

Section
Mitigation Measures
Responsible for
Timing
Impact after
Number
Monitoring
Mitigation
a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection
within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The
MLD may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and
items associated with Native American burials. In
addition, according to the California Health and
Safety Code, a cemetery is place where six or more
human bodies are buried (Section 8100), and
unauthorized disturbance of Native American
cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Geology and Soils
VI I. Geology
GEO-1 Grading and Construction
City of Yucaipa
Prior to issuance
Less than
and Soils
and Applicant.
of grading permits
significant.

The Project shall incorporate applicable
and during
recommendations provided in the Geotechnical
construction.
and Infiltration Evaluation prepared by GeoTek, Inc.
dated August 9, 2022 (Appendix E). The
recommendations are presented in Section 5.0
Conclusions and Recommendations of the report
under the following subheadings: general,
earthwork considerations, design
recommendations, retaining and garden wall
design and construction, preliminary pavement
design recommendations, concrete construction,
City of Yucaipa
"T' °` Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page105

Section
Number
Mitigation Measures
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing
Impact after
Mitigation
and plan review and construction observations
(pages 9-23).

VII. Geology
GEO-2 Inadvertent Paleontological Discovery
City of Yucaipa
During ground
Less than
and Soils
and Applicant.
disturbing
significant.

In the event that paleontological resources are
activities.
inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing
activities, a qualified paleontologist shall document
the discovery as appropriate, evaluate the potential
resource, and assess the significance of the find
under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.

City of Yucaipa
`T' °` Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PO April 2024
Page106

CHAPTER FIVE- REFERENCES AND PREPARERS

5.1 References Cited
2022 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Association of Environmental Professionals 2022.
2022 California Gas Report. California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022 Joint Utility Biennial Comprehensive California Gas Report 2022.pdf (socalgas.com) 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and Woodard & Curran, June 2021. 12th Street and Avenue E Residential Traffic Impact Analysis Yucaipa, California, TJW Engineering, Inc. February 9, 2023. (Appendix J)
1211 Street and Avenue E Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. TJW Engineering, Inc. June 6, 2023. (Appendix K)
California Air Resources Board. Guide to Off -Road Vehicle & Equipment Regulations. In -Use Off - Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation I California Air Resources Board California Department of Conservation (CDC). California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp). 2021. Accessed September 19, 2023. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application
California Department of Conservation (CDC). California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF). 2016.

Accessed September 19, 2023. DLRP Important Farmland Finder (ca.gov) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Accessed August 31, 2023. FHSZ Viewer ca. ov https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Department of General Services. California Building Standards Code (Title 24, 2022).

Codes (ca.gov)
California Department of Transportation. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. 2019. Accessed September 19, 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map (arcqis.com)
California Energy Commission. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act — SB 350. 2022. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act - SB 350 (ca.gov)
California Energy Commission. Joint Energy Report — SB 100. 2022. SB 100 Joint Agency Report ca. ov
City of Yucaipa 2016 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. December 2015.

City of Yucaipa 2016 General Plan. Adopted April 11, 2016. 2016 General Plan (yucaipa.gov) City of Yucaipa Emergency Operations Plan. November 2012. Accessed online at http://Vucaipa.org/wp-content/uploads/disaster prep/EOP.pdf City of Yucaipa Municipal Code (current through Ord. 434). Yucaipa, California Municipal Code (qcode.us)
City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, FEHR PEERS, August 2020.

City of Yucaipa
CIT or
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

Cultural Resources Assessment for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project, City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California (C-0478), Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM), July 21, 2023. (Appendix C)
Envirostor, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2019. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a.

Extended Phase I Survey Rockwell TTM 20372 Project, City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California, Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM), February 2024. (Appendix D)
FEMA Flood Map Service Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed January 31, 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019b.

Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Yucaipa Village Partners, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0318-021-18, -19 and -58, 121" Street and Avenue E, Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. GeoTek, Inc. August 9, 2022. (Appendix E) Heliports in California, United States of America. Accessed online on August 31, 2023 at https://www.airnay.com/airports/us/CA?type=H&use=R
Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update. PlaceWorks, October 2014.

Preliminary Hydrology Study TR 20372 Residential Development Yucaipa, CA. Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. November 2020. (Appendix G)
Preliminary Project Service Evaluation, Yucaipa Valley Water District. February 6, 202. (Appendix L)
Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, Inc. September 8, 2023. (Appendix A)
Rockwell Technical Studies Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Urban Crossroads, Inc. September 8, 2023. (Appendix F)
Rockwell Technical Studies Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, July 17, 2023. (Appendix 1)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

Adopted December 2, 2022. revised-draft-2022-agmp pdf (aqmd.gov) Starling Heights Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map 20372 Biological Resource Assessment Report, Casc Engineering and Consulting, July 2023. (Appendix B) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Water and Wetlands.

Accessed September 20, 2023. National Wetlands Inventory (usgs.gov) Water Quality Management Plan for Tract Map 20372, Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

August 2022. (Appendix H)
I City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page108

Western Heights Water Company. About Us Homepage.

Yucaipa Valley Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Sturdivan Emergency Management Consulting. 2020. http://documents.vvwd.dst.ca.us/emergency/hmp/200831yvwd- hmp pdf
Yucaipa Valley Water District Preliminary Project Service Evaluation TR 20372 — 128 Units.

February 6, 2024.

City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page109

5.2 List of Preparers
City of Yucaipa
Benjamin Matlock, Deputy Director of Community Development/City Planner Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

Frank Coyle, Director of Planning
Danielle Ornelas, Associate Planner
Katelyn Faulkner, Assistant Planner/Biologist
Ben Hamada, GIS Specialist
"�- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page110

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
"�- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page111

Appendix A
Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact
Analysis
crry or
City of Yucaipa
Rockwell TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024

J&URBAM
Rockwell Technical Studies

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF YUCAIPA
PREPARED BY:

Haseeb Qureshi
[email protected]
Ali Dadabhoy
[email protected]
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
15223-03 AQ Report

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................

II
LIST OF EXHIBITS.................................................................................................................................. II LISTOF TABLES.................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS.............................................................................................................

III

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 5 ES.1
Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................... 5 ES.2
Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures ........................................ 5 ES.3
Construction -Source Mitigation.................................................................................................... 6 ES.4
Operational -Source Mitigation Measures.................................................................................... 6 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 1 2 AIR QUALITY SETTING................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 South Coast Air Basin.................................................................................................................... 5 2.2
Regional Climate........................................................................................................................... 5 2.3
Wind Patterns and Project Location............................................................................................. 6

2.4 Criteria Pollutants......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5
Existing Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 14 2.6
Regional Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 17 2.7
Local Air Quality.......................................................................................................................... 17 2.8
Regulatory Background............................................................................................................... 18 3 PROJECT
AIR QUALITY IMPACT.................................................................................................. 24 3.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 24 3.2
Standards of Significance............................................................................................................ 24 3.3
California Emissions Estimator Mode lTm Employed To Analyze Air Quality ................................ 25 3.4
Construction Emissions............................................................................................................... 25 3.5
Operational Emissions................................................................................................................ 29 3.6
Localized Emissions.....................................................................................................................31

3.7 Construction -Source Emissions LST Analysis.............................................................................. 36 3.8
CO "Hot Spot" Analysis............................................................................................................... 37 3.8
Air Quality Management Planning.............................................................................................. 39 3.9
Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................................................... 41 3.10
Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors................................................................................... 42 3.11
Odors........................................................................................................................................... 42 3.12
Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................................... 43 4 REFERENCES
..............................................................................................................................46 5 CERTIFICATIONS
........................................................................................................................50 `1 URBAN
15223-03 Aq Report

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2.1: STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS APPENDIX 3.2: CALEEMOD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ..........................

EXHIBIT 1-13: SITE PLAN ....................................

EXHIBIT 3-A: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
............................................................................ 2 ............................................................................ 3 .......................................................................... 35

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS.................................................................. 5 TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS....................................................................................................... 7 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2).................................................................... 15 TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (2 OF 2).................................................................... 16 TABLE 2-3: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SCAB ......................................... 17 TABLE 2-4: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2019-2021.................................... 18 TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS..................................................... 24 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................ 26 TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION DURATION.............................................................................................. 27 TABLE 3-4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................... 27 TABLE 3-5: OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY............................................................ 28 TABLE 3-6: SUMMARY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS.............................................................................. 30 TABLE 3-7: MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED-ACREAGE........................................................................... 33 TABLE 3-8: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS.................................................... 36 TABLE 3-9: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION (WITHOUT MITIGATION) ......... 36 TABLE 3-10: CO MODEL RESULTS........................................................................................................ 37 TABLE 3-11: TRAFFIC VOLUMES.......................................................................................................... 38 O URBAN

CROSSROADS
15223-03 Aq Report

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
% Percent
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 Microgram per Cubic Meter
1992 CO Plan 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide AB 2595 California Clean Air Act
AQIA
Air Quality Impact Analysis
AQP
Air Quality Plans
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACM
Best Available Control Measure
C2H3Cl
vinyl chloride
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod
California Emissions Estimator Model
CaIEPA
California EPA
CALGreen
California Green Building Standards Code
CAPCOA
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CEC
California Energy Commission
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CO
carbon monoxide
COHb
carboxyhemoglobin
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC
EMissions FACtor model
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
g/L
gram/liter
GHG
greenhouse gas
1-12S
hydrogen sulfide
LST
Localized Significance Thresholds
LST Methodology
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology
MM Mitigation Measures
Mph miles per hour
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
`�'► URBAN
15223-03 Aq Report

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
NOx
nitrogen oxides
02 oxygen
02 deficiency
chronic hypoxemia
03 ozone
Pb
Lead
PM
Particulate Matter
PM10
Particulate matter 10 microns or less
PM2.5
Particulate matter 2.5 microns or less
ppm
parts per million
Project
Wildomar Meadows Project

RECLAIM
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
ROG
reactive organic gases
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
Rule 1113
SCAQMD Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings
Rule 403
SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust
Rule 445
SCAQMD Rule 445 — Wood -Burning Devices
SCAB
South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS
Sustainable Communities Strategy
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SO4
sulfates
SOX
sulfur oxides
SRA
Source Receptor Area
TAC
toxic air contaminant
Title I
Non -Attainment Provisions
Title II
Mobile Source Provisions
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
vph
vehicles per hour
` 1 URBAN
15223-03 Aq Report
iv

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 3 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1). Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential air quality impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures (MM) described below.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis
Report
Significance Findings
Section
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Regional Construction Emissions

3.4 Less Than Significant
n/a
Regional Operational Emissions

3.5 Less Than Significant
n/a
Localized Construction Emissions

3.6 Less Than Significant
n/a
Localized Operation Emissions

3.6 Less Than Significant
n/a
CO "Hot Spot" Analysis

3.7 Less Than Significant
n/a
Air Quality Management Plan

3.8 Less Than Significant
n/a
Toxic Air Contaminants Analysis

3.9 Less Than Significant
n/a
Sensitive Receptors

3.10 Less Than Significant
n/a
Odors

3.11 Less Than Significant
n/a
Cumulative Impacts

3.12 Less Than Significant
n/a
ES.2 STANDARD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS/BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES Measures listed below (or equivalent language) shall appear on all Project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City of Yucaipa will ensure such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 445 (Wood -Burning Devices), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (2) (3) (4). It should be noted that these Rules represent Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) and are not mitigation since they are regulatory requirements. As such, credit for Rule 403, Rule 445, and Rule 1113 have been taken.

RULE 403
The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to (2):
15223-03 AQ Report
LO► URBAN
V

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
• All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• All access points to the Project site shall have track out devices installed. Dirt accumulation shall be removed from Track out metal strips at end of each workday. Track out of dirt onto paved roadways shall be sweeped and removed at the end of each workday. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 mph or less.

RULE 445
The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445 (3):
• No wood burning devices shall be installed and any dwelling units consistent with SCAQMD Rule 445.

Ruir1113
The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (4):
• Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

ES.3 CONSTRUCTION -SOURCE MITIGATION
Project construction emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, Project construction -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis.

ESA OPERATIONAL -SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES
Project operational emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional of local thresholds of significance. Therefore, Project operational -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. 15223-03 AQ Report
LO► URBAN
Vi

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Rockwell Technical Studies (Project). The purpose of this AQIA is to evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project and identify measures, as necessary, to reduce emissions in comparison to thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Project site is located on the northeast corner of 12t" street and Avenue E in the City of Yucaipa, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The closest major airport is the Redlands Municipal Airport located roughly 5 miles northwest of the Project site.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is proposing to subdivide 14.78 acres into 128 lots for a residential development, as shown on Exhibit 1-B. The Project site consists of three (3) existing parcels: Accessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0318-021-18, -19, and -58. The Project site is vacant on two (2) parcels (APN 0318-021-18 and -19) and contains a single-family residence with horse corrals on one (1) parcel (APN 0318-021-58). The Project is anticipated to be fully developed within a single phase by year 2025.
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
1 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
r ,.,f ; f�AgANW
�_
400V
arm Ir /I
.._..,PAFTOM BILLS
J l�
o a / r
..- -.--- -- • V�Qi /III y / GCE F4 bcyu k.pl SnnoC
s r G�• HO 3.. Ua!^uk 0.y Rd
' � Ci � �N��x Q1 �iiYPV lass
V.IC6HGoII.
•.itr • • / r - Ywaipa a' Lake Hraele 111
ram.. '/ � �u/Rd Ji + WII�•{ib l f
�• so' �° Pmelnist t)r
- .vie F'oux or �naw a+� q
v°=a awo Yucap=gl..d Yucaipa
i
_ '1'IpFhn,ylOn nr
Dunlap Acres -- i i r na sawma
Site/� sreelpa,
tip
sa -
el
is na1�a Ie.as nr = e"ry
� �J ��sy 4Ia Ook GIIII GrIN FC � � .ii.�
�l[r 11 g`pr /�S ..- Lno.-M1dve
San'avr r YUCAIPA VALLEY
p � Gd'yon Ru uebr�k:. ,I ;inJ:,��d r.an
eer• na+dlno•rwr � ob
sources: Esti, HER
"eroa
�Yucaipa Gla.x
aryn•.
a �
SLIf _ o as
r
/_ sARRnirvo incrementCorp
E , 9R[ANG Op�E�� KQPiPSt@NVr0n[f_ a Esrl Chinaon AY66,MSurve , vEsnana WC`-11 (cJ openstreetmup-
utars, an4*
15223-03 AQ Report
2 LO1 URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
15223-03 AQ Report

L'O URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
2 AIR QUALITY SETTING
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions in the Project area and region.

2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD (5). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis -Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

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

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

The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to mid 60s, as measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures.

January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 470F in downtown Los Angeles and 367 in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 1007.

Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi -arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (S02) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity.

The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71% along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90% of the SCAB's rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
5 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one -quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14% hours of possible sunshine.

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

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

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

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

2.3 WIND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
6 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

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

2.4 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Criteria pollutants, their typical sources, and health effects are identified below (6):

TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
CO
CO is a colorless, odorless gas
Any source that
Individuals with a deficient
produced by the incomplete
burns fuel such as
blood supply to the heart are
combustion of carbon -containing
automobiles, trucks,
the most susceptible to the
fuels, such as gasoline or wood.
heavy construction
adverse effects of CO
CO concentrations tend to be the
equipment, farming
exposure. The effects
highest during the winter
equipment and
observed include earlier
morning, when little to no wind
residential heating.
onset of chest pain with
and surface -based inversions trap
exercise, and
the pollutant at ground levels.
electrocardiograph changes
Because CO is emitted directly
indicative of decreased
from internal combustion
oxygen (02) supply to the
engines, unlike ozone (03), motor
heart. Inhaled CO has no
vehicles operating at slow speeds
direct toxic effect on the
are the primary source of CO in
lungs but exerts its effect on
the SCAB. The highest ambient
tissues by interfering with Oz
CO concentrations are generally
transport and competing with
found near congested
Ozto combine with
transportation corridors and
hemoglobin present in the
intersections.
blood to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb).

Hence, conditions with an
increased demand for Oz
supply can be adversely
affected by exposure to CO.

Individuals most at risk
include fetuses, patients with
diseases involving heart and
blood vessels, and patients
with chronic hypoxemia (02
deficiency) as seen at high
altitudes.
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
7 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
S02
S02 is a colorless, extremely
Coal or oil burning
A few minutes of exposure to
irritating gas or liquid. It enters
power plants and
low levels of S02 can result in
the atmosphere as a pollutant
industries,
airway constriction in some
mainly as a result of burning high
refineries, diesel
asthmatics, all of whom are
sulfur -content fuel oils and coal
engines
sensitive to its effects. In
and from chemical processes
asthmatics, increase in
occurring at chemical plants and
resistance to air flow, as well
refineries. When S02 oxidizes in
as reduction in breathing
the atmosphere, it forms SO4.
capacity leading to severe
Collectively, these pollutants are
breathing difficulties, are
referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx)•
observed after acute
exposure to S02. In contrast,
healthy individuals do not
exhibit similar acute
responses even after
exposure to higher
concentrations of SO2.

Animal studies suggest that
despite S02 being a
respiratory irritant, it does
not cause substantial lung
injury at ambient
concentrations. However,
very high levels of exposure
can cause lung edema (fluid
accumulation), lung tissue
damage, and sloughing off of
cells lining the respiratory
tract.

Some population -based
studies indicate that the
mortality and morbidity
effects associated with fine
particles show a similar
association with ambient S02
levels. In these studies,
efforts to separate the effects
Of S02 from those of fine
particles have not been
successful. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants
act synergistically, or one
pollutant alone is the
predominant factor.
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
NOx
NOx consist of nitric oxide (NO)
Any source that
Population -based studies
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
burns fuel such as
suggest that an increase in
five other compounds, which are
automobiles, trucks,
acute respiratory illness,
formed when nitrogen (N)
heavy construction
including infections and
combines with oxygen. Their
equipment, farming
respiratory symptoms in
lifespan in the atmosphere
equipment and
children (not infants), is
ranges from one to seven days
residential heating.
associated with long-term
for NO and NO2. NOx is typically
exposure to NO2 at levels
created during combustion
found in homes with gas
processes and are major
stoves, which are higher than
contributors to smog formation
ambient levels found in
and acid deposition. NO2 is a
Southern California. Increase
criteria air pollutant and may
in resistance to air flow and
result in numerous adverse
airway contraction is
health effects; it absorbs blue
observed after short-term
light, resulting in a brownish -red
exposure to NO2 in healthy
cast to the atmosphere and
subjects. Larger decreases in
reduced visibility. Of the seven
lung functions are observed
types of nitrogen oxide
in individuals with asthma or
compounds, NO2 is the most
chronic obstructive
abundant in the atmosphere. As
pulmonary disease (e.g.,
ambient concentrations of NO2
chronic bronchitis,
are related to traffic density,
emphysema) than in healthy
commuters in heavy traffic may
individuals, indicating a
be exposed to higher
greater susceptibility of these
concentrations of NO2 than those
sub -groups.
indicated by regional monitoring
station.

In animals, exposure to levels
of NO2 considerably higher
than ambient concentrations
result in increased
susceptibility to infections,
possibly due to the observed
changes in cells involved in
maintaining immune
functions. The severity of
lung tissue damage
associated with high levels of
03 exposure increases when
animals are exposed to a
combination of 03 and NO2.
03 03 is a highly reactive and
Formed when
Individuals exercising
unstable gas that is formed when
reactive organic
outdoors, children, and
VOCs and NOx, both byproducts
gases (ROG)
people with preexisting lung
of internal combustion engine
and NOx
disease, such as asthma and
exhaust, undergo slow
react in the
chronic pulmonary lung
photochemical reactions in the
presence of
disease, are considered to be
15223-03 AQ Report L URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
presence of sunlight. 03
sunlight. ROG
the most susceptible sub -
concentrations are generally
sources
groups for 03 effects. Short -
highest during the summer
include any source
term exposure (lasting for a
months when direct sunlight,
that burns fuels,
few hours) to 03 at levels
light wind, and warm
(e.g., gasoline,
typically observed in
temperature conditions are
natural gas, wood,
Southern California can result
favorable to the formation of this
oil) solvents,
in breathing pattern changes,
pollutant.
petroleum
reduction of breathing
processing and
capacity, increased
storage and
susceptibility to infections,
pesticides.
inflammation of the lung
tissue, and some
immunological changes.

Elevated 03 levels are
associated with increased
school absences. In recent
years, a correlation between
elevated ambient 03 levels
and increases in daily hospital
admission rates, as well as
mortality, has also been
reported. An increased risk
for asthma has been found in
children who participate in
multiple outdoor sports and
live in communities with high
03 levels.
03 exposure under exercising
conditions is known to
increase the severity of the
responses described above.

Animal studies suggest that
exposure to a combination of
pollutants that includes 03
may be more toxic than
exposure to 03 alone.

Although lung volume and
resistance changes observed
after a single exposure
diminish with repeated
exposures, biochemical and
cellular changes appear to
persist, which can lead to
subsequent lung structural
changes.
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
10 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
Particulate Matter
PM1o: A major air pollutant
Sources of PM10
A consistent correlation
(PM)
consisting of tiny solid or liquid
include road dust,
between elevated ambient
particles of soot, dust, smoke,
windblown dust and
fine PM (PM10 and PM2.5)
fumes, and aerosols. PM
construction. Also
levels and an increase in
pollution is a major cause of
formed from other
mortality rates, respiratory
reduce visibility (haze) which is
pollutants (acid
infections, number and
caused by the scattering of light
rain, NOx, SOx,
severity of asthma attacks
and consequently the significant
organics).
and the number of hospital
reduction air clarity. The size of
Incomplete
admissions has been
the particles (10 microns or
combustion of any
observed in different parts of
smaller, about 0.0004 inches or
fuel.
the United States and various
less) allows them to easily enter
areas around the world. In
the lungs where they may be
PM2.5 comes from
recent years, some studies
deposited, resulting in adverse
fuel combustion in
have reported an association
health effects. Additionally, it
motor vehicles,
between long-term exposure
should be noted that PM10 is
equipment and
to air pollution dominated by
considered a criteria air pollutant.
industrial sources,
fine particles and increased
PM2.5: A similar air pollutant to
residential and
mortality, reduction in
lifespan, and an increased
PM10 consisting of tiny solid or
agricultural
mortality from lung cancer.
liquid particles which are 2.5
burning. Also
microns or smaller (which is often
formed from
Daily fluctuations in PM2.5
referred to as fine particles).
reaction of other
concentration levels have
These particles are formed in the
pollutants (acid
also been related to hospital
admissions for acute
atmosphere from primary
rain, NOx, SOx,
respiratory conditions in
gaseous emissions that include
organics).
children, to school and
SO4 formed from S02 release
kindergarten absences, to a
from power plants and industrial
decrease in respiratory lung
facilities and nitrates that are
volumes in normal children,
and to increased medication
formed from NOx release from
use in children and adults
power plants, automobiles and
with asthma. Recent studies
other types of combustion
show lung function growth in
sources. The chemical
children is reduced with long
composition of fine particles
term exposure to PM.
highly depends on location, time
The elderly, people with pre -
of year, and weather conditions.
existing respiratory or
PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant.
cardiovascular disease, and
children appear to be more
susceptible to the effects of
high levels of PM10 and PM2.5.

VOC
VOCs are hydrocarbon
Organic chemicals
Breathing VOCs can irritate
compounds (any compound
are widely used as
the eyes, nose and throat,
containing various combinations
ingredients in
can cause difficulty breathing
of hydrogen and carbon atoms)
household
and nausea, and can damage
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
11 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
that exist in the ambient air.
products. Paints,
the central nervous system as
VOCs contribute to the formation
varnishes and wax
well as other organs. Some
of smog through atmospheric
all contain organic
VOCs can cause cancer. Not
photochemical reactions and/or
solvents, as do
all VOCs have all these health
may be toxic. Compounds of
many cleaning,
effects, though many have
carbon (also known as organic
disinfecting,
several.
compounds) have different levels
cosmetic,
of reactivity; that is, they do not
degreasing and
react at the same speed or do not
hobby products.
form 03 to the same extent when
Fuels are made up
exposed to photochemical
of organic
processes. VOCs often have an
chemicals. All of
odor, and some examples include
these products can
gasoline, alcohol, and the
release organic
solvents used in paints.
compounds while
Exceptions to the VOC
you are using them,
designation include CO, carbon
and, to some
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
degree, when they
carbides or carbonates, and
are stored.
ammonium carbonate. VOCs are
a criteria pollutant since they are
a precursor to 03, which is a
criteria pollutant. The terms VOC
and ROG (see below)
interchangeably.

ROG
Similar to VOC, ROGs are also
Sources similar to
Health effects similar to
precursors in forming 03 and
VOCs.

VOCs.
consist of compounds containing
methane, ethane, propane,
butane, and longer chain
hydrocarbons, which are typically
the result of some type of
combustion/decomposition
process. Smog is formed when
ROG and NOx react in the
presence of sunlight. ROGs are a
criteria pollutant since they are a
precursor to 03, which is a
criteria pollutant. The terms ROG
and VOC (see previous)
interchangeably.

Lead (Pb)
Pb is a heavy metal that is highly
Metal smelters,
Fetuses, infants, and children
persistent in the environment
resource recovery,
are more sensitive than
and is considered a criteria
leaded gasoline,
others to the adverse effects
pollutant. In the past, the primary
of Pb exposure. Exposure to
source of Pb in the air was
low levels of Pb can adversely
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
12 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
emissions from vehicles burning
deterioration of Pb
affect the development and
leaded gasoline. The major
paint.
function of the central
sources of Pb emissions are ore
nervous system, leading to
and metals processing,
learning disorders,
particularly Pb smelters, and
distractibility, inability to
piston -engine aircraft operating
follow simple commands, and
on leaded aviation gasoline.
lower intelligence quotient. In
Other stationary sources include
adults, increased Pb levels are
waste incinerators, utilities, and
associated with increased
lead -acid battery manufacturers.
blood pressure.

It should be noted that the
Project does not include
Pb poisoning can cause
operational activities such as
anemia, lethargy, seizures,
metal processing or Pb acid
and death; although it
battery manufacturing. As such,
appears that there are no
the Project is not anticipated to
direct effects of Pb on the
generate a quantifiable amount
respiratory system. Pb can be
of Pb emissions.
stored in the bone from early
age environmental exposure,
and elevated blood Pb levels
can occur due to breakdown
of bone tissue during
pregnancy, hyperthyroidism
(increased secretion of
hormones from the thyroid
gland) and osteoporosis
(breakdown of bony tissue).

Fetuses and breast-fed babies
can be exposed to higher
levels of Pb because of
previous environmental Pb
exposure of their mothers.

Odor
Odor means the perception
Odors can come
Offensive odors can
experienced by a person when
from many sources
potentially affect human
one or more chemical substances
including animals,
health in several ways. First,
in the air come into contact with
human activities,
odorant compounds can
the human olfactory nerves (7).
industry, natures,
irritate the eye, nose, and
and vehicles.
throat, which can reduce
respiratory volume. Second,
studies have shown that the
VOCs that cause odors can
stimulate sensory nerves to
cause neurochemical changes
that might influence health,
for instance, by
compromising the immune
system. Finally, unpleasant
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
13 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutant
Description
Sources
Health Effects
odors can trigger memories
or attitudes linked to
unpleasant odors, causing
cognitive and emotional
effects such as stress.

2.5 EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect are shown in Table 2-2 (8).

The determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards. At the time of this AQIA, the most recent state and federal standards are presented in Table 2-2. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for 03, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM1o, and PM2.5 are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. It should be noted that the three- year period is presented for informational purposes and is not the basis for how attainment status is determined. Attainment status for a pollutant means that the SCAB meets the standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the California EPA (CalEPA). Conversely, nonattainment means that an area has monitored air quality that does not meet the NAAQS or CAAQS. A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for area that are designated non -attainment under the NAAQS. A SIP outlines the measures that a state will take to improve air quality in the area designated nonattainment. Once a nonattainment area meet the standards and additional redesignation requirements, the EPA designates the area as a maintenance area (9).
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
14 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1 OF 2)
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging
California Standards'
National Standards'
Pollutant
Time
3 Concentration
Method a
Primary"

3.a
Secondary
Method 7
1 Hour

0.09 ppm (180 Pglm3)
Ozone [031g
Ultraviolet
Same as
UltraviUltravioletraolet
8 Hour
3 0.070 ppm { 137 pglm)
3 0.074 ppm [137 Pglm )
Photometry
Primary Standard
Photometry
Respirable
24 Hour
54 pglm3
160 4m3
Inertial Separation
Particulate
Gravimetric or
Same as
andGravimelric
,annual
24 pglm3
—
Matter (PM10)g
Beta Attenuation
Primary Standard
Analysis
Arithmetic Mean
Fine
Particulate
24 Hour
35 pglm 3
Sameas
Primary Standard
Inertial Separation
Matter
Annual
3 Gravimetric or
3 3
and Gravimelric
Analysis
y
(PM2 r6)9
Arithmetic Mean
12 p�n�
Beta Attenuation

12.0 N9rm
15 µgrm
1 Hour
20 ppm (23 mg1m)
35 ppm (40 mg1m)
—
Carbon
Non -Dispersive
Non -Dispersive
Monoxide
8 Hour

9.0 ppm (10 mg1m)
Infrared Photometry
9 ppm (14 mglm3)
—
Irfrared Photometry
(C0)
(NDIR)
(NDIR)
8 Hour
6 ppm (7 mglm3)
(Lake Tahoe)
Nitrogen
1 Hour

0.18 ppm (339 pg1m3)
100 ppb (188 pgfrn)
—
Dioxide
Gas Phase
Gas Phase
Annual
4030 m3
ppm[57 pgi ]
m m3

0.053 pP (100 p9l ]
Same as
�n
(NO
Chemiluminescence
Chemiluminescence
2}
Arithmetic Mean
.

PrimaryStandard
1 Hour

0.25 ppm (655 pgfm3)
75 ppb (196 pglm3)
—
Ultraviolet

0.5 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
3 Hour
—
Ultraviolet
m3
(1344 p9l )
Flourescence;
1 (SO 21
Fluorescence
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
24 Hour
3 4.04 ppm (105 pgfm ]

0.14 ppm
_
(for certain areas)11
Method)
Annual

4.030 ppm
Arithmetic Mean
_
(for certain areas)71
_
30 Day Average

1.5 pglm3
High Vol ume
1 F) pg1m3
Lead7?'"
Calendar Quarter
—
Atomic Absorption
(for certain areas)12
Same as
Sampler and Atomic
Primary Standard
Absorpton
Rolling 3-Morth
—

4.15 pglm 3
Average
Visibility
Beta Attenuation and
Reducing
8 Hour
See footnote 14
Transmittance
No
PartICleS14
through Filter Tape
National
Sulfates
24 Hour
25 pglms
Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
I Hour
0 03 ppm (42 pg1m)
Ultraviolet
Sulfide
Fluorescence
Standards
Vinyl
72 24 Hour
a

0.01 ppm (26 pglm)
Gas
Chloride
Chrom ra h
�g p y
See footnotes on next page ...

For more information please call FRB-PI0 at (9I6) 322-2990 California Air Resources Board (5I4116) 15223-03 AQ Report

LI URBAN
15 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (2 OF 2)

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (l and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5. and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2_ National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24houraverage concentration above 150 pglrn is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S.

EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperattue of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr_ Most measurements of air quality are to he corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 tort, ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas-
4- Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used-
5- National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards- The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA An "equivalent method' of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA- 8- On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm- 9- On December 14, 2012. the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 pglm to 12.0 pglm . The existing national 24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 prom. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µgym' also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged oc•er 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in traits of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppnL In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO_ standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 991h percentile of the l-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SOZ national standards (24-hour and amrual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattaim ent for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved Note that the l-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units ofparts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the Califamia standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm

12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of ccmtral measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µfilm as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved

14. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

For more information please call ARB-PI0 at (916) 322-2990 California wit' Resources Board (5/4116) 15223-03 AQ Report

LI URBAN
16 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

2.6 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
Air pollution contributes to a wide variety of adverse health effects. The EPA has established NAAQS for six of the most common air pollutants: CO, Pb, 03, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), NO2, and SO2 which are known as criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single -pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites throughout the air district (10). On December 28, 2021, CARB posted the proposed 2021 amendments to the state and national area designations. See Table 2-3 for attainment designations for the SCAB (11). Appendix 2.1 provides geographic representation of the state and federal attainment status for applicable criteria pollutants within the SCAB.

TABLE 2-3: ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SCAB Criteria Pollutant
State Designation
Federal Designation
03 —1-hour standard
Nonattainment
--
03 — 8-hour standard
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
PM10
Nonattainment
Attainment
PMZ.S
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
CO
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
S02
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Pb'
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Note: See Appendix 2.1 for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the SCAB = The national 1-hour Os standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005.

2.7 LOCAL AIR QUALITY
The Project site is located within the Source Receptor Area (SRA) 35. Within SRA 35, the SCAQMD East San Bernardino Valley monitoring station, located 4.09 miles northwest of the Project site, is the nearest long-term air quality monitoring station for 03 and PM1o. The East San Bernardino Valley monitoring station does not include data for CO, NO2, and PM2.5. The nearest monitoring station for CO, NO2, and PM2.5 is Central San Bernardino Valley 2, located approximately 12.01 miles northwest of the Project site. It should be noted that the Central San Bernardino Valley 2 monitoring station was utilized in lieu of the East San Bernardino Valley monitoring station only in instances where data was not available.

The most recent three (3) years of data available is shown on Table 2-4 and is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site (12). Please note, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the SCAB and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations.

The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
17 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis TABLE 2-4: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2019-2021 Pollutant
Standard
Year
2019
2020
2021
03 Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm)

0.137

0.173

0.145
Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm)

0.117

0.136

0.119
Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard
> 0.09 ppm
73 104
74 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm
109
141
118
CO
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration
> 35 ppm

1.3 1.9

2.0 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration
> 20 ppm

1.1 1.4

1.6 NO2
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration
> 0.100 ppm

0.059

0.054

0.056
Annual Federal Standard Design Value

0.014

0.015

0.015
PMlo
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3)
> 150 µg/m3
44 57
44 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3)

21.2 23.4

23.2 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard
> 150 µg/m3
0 0
0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard
> 50 µg/m3
0 1
0 PM2.s
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3)
> 35 µg/m3

34.80 25.70

57.9 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3)
> 12 µg/m3

10.06 11.66

11.9 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard
> 35 µg/m3
0 0
1 ppm= Parts Per Million
Source: SCAQMD Historical Air Quality Data By Year, Air Quality Data Tables.

2.8 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.8.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for 03, CO, NOx, S02, PM1o, and Pb (13). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (14). The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement SIPS for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.
15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
18 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non -Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (15) (16). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants 03, N021 S021 PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for 03 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 2-3 (previously presented) provides the NAAQS.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx. NOx is a collective term that includes all forms of NOx which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

2.8.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CARB, which became part of the CalEPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California CAA (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3C1).

However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (17) (13).

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

Under the California CAA non -attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Plans (AQP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development); • A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; 15223-03 AQ Report
L'! URBAN
19 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOx, CO and PMlo. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.

TITLE 24 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective on January 1, 2023. The CEC anticipates that the 2022 energy code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce GHG emissions by 10 million metric tons (18). The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. These require, among other items (19):

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

4.106.4.2, 4.106.4.3, to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. (4.106.4).
o New one- and two-family dwellings and town -houses with attached private garages. For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere 208/240-volt minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. o New hotels and motels. All newly constructed hotels and motels shall provide EV spaces capable of supporting future installation of EVSE. The construction documents shall identify the location of the EV spaces. The number of required EV spaces shall be based on the total number of parking spaces provided for all types of parking facilities in accordance with Table 4.106.4.3.1.
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with Sections 4.303.1.1, 4.303.1.2, 4.303.1.3, and

4.303.1.4.
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
20 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis • Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas. Residential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resource Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent. • Operation and maintenance manual. At the time of final inspection, a manual, compact disc, web - based reference, or other media acceptable to the enforcing agency which includes all of the following shall be placed in the building:
o Directions to the owner or occupant that the manual shall remain with the building throughout the life cycle of the structure.
o Operations and maintenance instructions for the following:

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

2. Roof and yard drainage, including gutter and downspouts.

3. Space conditioning systems, including condensers and air filters.

4. Landscape irrigation systems.

5. Water reuse systems.
o Information from local utility, water and waste recovery providers on methods to future reduce resource consumption, including recycle programs and locations. o Public transportation and/or carpool options available in the area. o Educational material on the positive impacts of an interior relative humidity between 30- 60% and what methods an occupants may use to maintain the relative humidity level in that range.
o Information about water -conserving landscape and irrigation design and controllers which conserve water.
o Instructions for maintaining gutters and downspouts and the importance of diverting water at least 5 feet away from the foundation.
o Information about state solar energy and incentive programs available. o A copy of all special inspection verifications required by the enforcing agency of this code. o Information from CALFIRE on maintenance of defensible space around residential structures.
• Any installed gas fireplace shall be direct -vent sealed -combustion type. Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall comply with U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) emission limits as applicable and shall have a permanent label indicating they are certified to meet the emission limits. Woodstoves, pellet stoves and fireplaces shall also comply with applicable local ordinances.
• Paints and coatings. Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the CARB Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits apply. The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for the specialty coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be determined by classifying the coating as a Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat-high Gloss coating, based on its glass, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36, and 4.37 of the 2007 CARB, Suggested Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat, Nonflat-high Gloss VOC limit in Table 4.504.3 shall apply. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
21 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

2.8.3 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the NAAQS and CAAQs (20). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and Project consistency with the AQMP is provided in Section 3.10. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
22 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 15223-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank.
�%► URBAN
23 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 3 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it will violate an air quality standard, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, or determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non -attainment under an applicable NAAQS and CAAQS. Additionally, the Project has been evaluated to determine consistency with the applicable AQMP, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impacts of odors. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following section.

3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project -related air quality impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (1):
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. affecting a substantial number of people.

The SCAQMD has also developed regional significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 3-1 (21). The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2023) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 3-1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Construction
Operations
NOx
100 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
VOC
75 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
PM10
150 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
PM2.5
55 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
sox
150 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
CO
550 lbs./day
550 lbs./day
Pb
3 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
lbs./day = Pounds Per Day
Source: Regional Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2023 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
24 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

3.3 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR MODELTm EMPLOYED TO ANALYZE AIR QUALITY Land uses such as the Project affect air quality through construction -source and operational - source emissions.

In May 2023 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.12. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction -source and operational -source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation (22). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. CaIEEMod output for both construction and operational scenarios is provided in Appendices 3.1 and 3.2.

3.3.1 EMISSION FACTORS MODEL

EMISSION FACTORS MODEL
The EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC) web database is used for State Implementation Plan and transportation conformity analyses. EMFAC2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the CARB to project changes in future emissions from on -road mobile sources (23). CaIEEMod, version 2022.1.1.12, incorporates EMFAC2021. Additionally, the EMFAC emission factors used in this analysis include adjustment factors for the SAFE Rule (24) (25).

3.4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOX, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Architectural Coating
• Paving

DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
The Project site is currently developed with an existing structure and asphalt/concrete, resulting in approximately 2,300 square feet of demolished material. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
25 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust, in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, is typically a major concern during site preparation and grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions". Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from these activities, which includes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403.

Per client provided data, the Project would require 9,450 cubic yards of import for earthwork activities. Site preparation and grading activities are modeled as sequential phases.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PAVING, AND ARCHITECTURAL COATING ACTIVITIES Building construction and paving emissions are primarily associated with exhaust emissions from on -site equipment and vehicular trips to the site by construction workers and vendor trips.

Architectural coating emissions include worker trips as well, but the primary pollutant emission of concern during this phase is ROG/VOC. CalEEMod default emission rates include the effects of Rule 1113 to limit ROG/VOC emissions. To present a reasonable worst -case scenario, the building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities are modeled as overlapping phases.

CONSTRUCTION WORKER VEHICLE TRIPS
Emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project site) were estimated based on information from CalEEMod for all construction phases.

ON -ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on -road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and haul trucks commuting to and from the site. The number of worker, vendor, and hauling trips are presented below in Table 3-2. Worker trips are based on CalEEMod defaults. It should be noted that for vendor trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns vendor trips to the Building Construction phase. Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for vendor trips have been adjusted based on a ratio of the total vendor trips to the number of days of each subphase of activity.

TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity
Worker Trips
Per Day
Vendor Trips
Per Day
Hauling Trips
Per Day
Demolition
15 1
1 Site Preparation
18 0
0 Grading
20 1
27 Building Construction
46 12
0 Paving
15 0
0 Architectural Coating
9 0
0 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
26 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

3.4.1 CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction is expected to commence in January 2024 and will last through December 2025.

The construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table 3-3, represents a "worst -case" analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.' It should be noted that the duration of Building Construction was expanded based on the changes made to the number of days which was increased from the default parameters to reflect the 2025 Opening Year. The Activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (1).

TABLE 3-3: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction Activity
Start Date
End Date
Days
Demolition
1/1/2024
2/8/2024
29 Site Preparation
2/9/2024
2/29/2024
15 Grading
3/1/2024
4/30/2024
43 Building Construction
5/1/2024
12/31/2025
436
Paving
11/20/2025
12/31/2025
30 Architectural Coating
11/20/2025
12/31/2025
30 Source: Appendix 3.1.

3.4.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction.

The equipment list is generally based on CalEEMod default parameters and confirmed with the Project Applicant. A detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided in Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity
Equipment'
Amount
Hours Per Day
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8
Excavators
3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8
Crawler Tractors
4 8
Z As shown in the CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2022.1.12, Section 4.3 "Offroad Equipment" as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
27 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis Construction Activity
Equipment'
Amount
Hours Per Day
Grading
Excavators
2 8
Graders
1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8
Scrapers
2 8
Crawler Tractors
2 8
Building Construction
Cranes
1 8
Forklifts
3 8
Generator Sets
1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8
Welders
1 8
Paving
Pavers
2 8
Paving Equipment
2 8
Rollers
2 8
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 8
'In order to account for fugitive dust emissions, Crawler Tractors were used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes during the site preparation and grading phases.

3.4.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CalEEMod calculates maximum daily emissions for summer and winter periods. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions with fugitive dust control as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 are summarized on Table 3-5. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

TABLE 3-5: OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMlo
PM,.,
Summer (Smog Season)
2024

3.66 36.80

33.22 0.07

4.94 2.54
2025

1.44 11.92

17.95 0.03

1.17 0.60
Winter
2024

3.73 36.92

34.05 0.07

7.49 4.21
2025

64.73 20.70

29.99 0.04

1.88 1.03
Maximum Daily Emissions

64.73 36.92

34.05 0.07

7.49 4.21
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Source: CaIEEMod construction -source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1. 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
28 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

3.5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOX, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions

3.5.1 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Over a period of time the buildings that are part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated using CaIEEMod standard assumptions for the Project and the allowed land use.

CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The emissions associated with use of consumer products were calculated based on CalEEMod standard assumptions for the Project and the allowed land use.

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. It should be noted that on October 9, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1346. The bill aims to ban the sale of new gasoline -powered equipment under 25 gross horsepower (known as small off -road engines [SORES]) by 2024. For purposes of analysis, the emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CaIEEMod.

3.5.2 ENERGY SOURCE EMISSIONS

COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), which provides pollution 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
29 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis credits for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using CalEEMod standard assumptions for the Project and the allowed land use.

3.5.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
Project mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Project. The Project -related operational air quality impacts are derived primarily from the 1,207 vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Traffic Impact Analysis were utilized in this analysis (26).

FUGITIVE DUST RELATED TO VEHICULAR TRAVEL
Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of brake and tire wear particulates. The emissions estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using CalEEMod standard assumptions.

3.5.5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Operational activities for summer and winter scenarios are presented in Table 3-6. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2. Project operational -source emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and impacts will be less than significant.

TABLE 3-6: SUMMARY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NO.

CO
SOX
PM,,)
I PMZ.s
Summer (Smog Season)
Mobile Source

4.88 4.39

41.32 0.10

3.34 0.65
Area Source

7.26 1.98

8.06 0.01

0.16 0.16
Energy Source

0.06 1.01

0.43 0.01

0.08 0.08
Total Maximum Daily Emissions

12.20 7.39

49.81 0.12

3.58 0.89
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
30 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NO.

CO
SOX
PM,,)
I PM,.,
Winter
Mobile Source

4.52 4.72

34.71 0.09

3.34 0.65
Area Source

6.61 1.91

0.81 0.01

0.15 0.15
Energy Source

0.06 1.01

0.43 0.01

0.08 0.08
Total Maximum Daily Emissions

11.18 7.64

35.96 0.11

3.57 0.88
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Source: CalEEMod operation -source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.2.

3.6 LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (27). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs).

The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board's Environmental Justice Initiative 1-43. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

LSTs were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the LST Methodology (28).

APPLICABILITY OF LSTS FOR THE PROJECT
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD East San Bernardino Valley (SRA35). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM1o, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look -up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size.
3 The purpose of SCAQMD's Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision -making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as "...equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution." 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
31 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis In order to determine the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of Project -related construction, the following process is undertaken:
• Identify the maximum daily on -site emissions that will occur during construction activity:
o The maximum daily on -site emissions could be based on information provided by the Project Applicant; or
o The SCAQMD's Fact SheetforApplying CaIEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds and CaIEEMod User's Guide Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod can be used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod (29) (30). • If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to 5 acres per day, then the SCAQMD's screening look -up tables are utilized to determine if a Project has the potential to result in a significant impact. The look -up tables establish a maximum daily emissions threshold in Ibs/day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs.
• If the total acreage disturbed is greater than 5 acres per day, then LST impacts may still be conservatively evaluated using the LST look -up tables for a 5-acre disturbance area. Use of the 5- acre disturbance area thresholds can be used to show that even if the daily emissions from all construction activity were emitted within a 5-acre area, and therefore concentrated over a smaller area which would result in greater site adjacent concentrations, the impacts would still be less than significant if the applicable 5-acre thresholds are utilized. • The LSTMethodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances between the given receptors, the methodology uses linear interpolation to determine the thresholds.

EMISSIONS CONSIDERED
Based on SCAQMD's LST Methodology, emissions for concern during construction activities are on -site NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM1o. The LST Methodology clearly states that "off -site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs (31)." As such, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CaIEEMod "on - site" emissions outputs were considered.

MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED -ACREAGE
The "acres disturbed" for analytical purposes are based on specific equipment type for each subcategory of construction activity and the estimated maximum area a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday (as shown on Table 3-7). The equipment -specific grading rates are summarized in the SCAQMD's Fact Sheet for Applying CaIEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds and CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C: Emission Calculation Details for CaIEEMod (29) (32). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day.
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
32 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis As shown on Table 3-7, the proposed Project's construction activities could actively disturb approximately 1 acre per day during demolition, 3.5 acres per day during site preparation and 4 acres per day for grading activities.

TABLE 3-7: MAXIMUM DAILY DISTURBED -ACREAGE
Construction
Activity
Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres graded
per 8-hour day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres graded
per day
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 0.5
8 1
Total acres disturbed per day during Demolition
1 Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors
4 0.5
8 2
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 0.5
8 1.5
Total acres disturbed per day during Site Preparation

3.5 Grading
Crawler Tractors
2 0.5
8 1
Graders
1 0.5
8 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 0.5
8 0.5
Scrapers
2 1
8 2
Total acres disturbed per day during Grading
4 Source: Maximum daily disturbed acreage based on equipment list presented in Appendix 3.1.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as "sensitive receptors". These structures typically include residences, hotels, hospitals, etc. as they are also known to be locations where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site (in this case the nearest residential land use) has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

LSTs apply, even for non -sensitive land uses, consistent with LST Methodology and SCAQMD guidance. Per the LST Methodology, commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees and patrons do not typically remain onsite for a full 24 hours but are typically onsite for 8 hours or less. However, LST Methodology explicitly states that "LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO2 and CO LSTs, could also be applied to receptors such as industrial, commercial, school/institutional facilities since it is reasonable to assume that a worker/student at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight hours (31)." Therefore, any adjacent land use where an individual could remain for 1 or 8- hours, that is located at a closer distance to the Project site than the receptor used for PM10 and 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
33 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis PM2.5 analysis, must be considered to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NO2 and CO since these pollutants have an averaging time of 1 and 8-hours.

PROJECT -RELATED RECEPTORS
Receptors in the Project study area are described below and shown on Exhibit 3-A. Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the Project site. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building facade, whichever is closer to the Project site.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing residence at 12383 12th Street, approximately 72 feet north of the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing residence at 12376 Cambria Drive, approximately 206 feet east of the Project site.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing residence 32939 Avenue E, approximately 85 feet south of the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents Dunlap Elementary School at 32870 Avenue E, approximately 77 feet west of the Project site.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project's potential to cause an individual a cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PMz.s thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is represented by location R1 which represents the existing residence at 12383 12th Street, approximately 72 feet (22 meters) north of the Project site.

As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOx and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assumed that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. It should be noted that the R1 is located at a closer distance than the nearest industrial/commercial use. As such, the same receptor will be used for evaluation of localized NOx and CO.

It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that "It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (27)." As such, a 25-meter distance will be used for evaluation of localized emissions of PM1o, PM2.5, NOx, and CO. 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
34 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3-A: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
LEGEND:

L_] Site Boundary m Receptor Locations — Distance from receptor to Project site boundary (in feet) 15223-03 AQ Report
35 LO► URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

3.7 CONSTRUCTION -SOURCE EMISSIONS LST ANALYSIS

3.7.1 LOCALIZED THRESHOLDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Since the total acreage disturbed is 1 acre per day for demolition, 3.5 acre per day for site preparation and 4 acres per day grading activities, SCAQMD's screening look -up tables are utilized in determining impacts. It should be noted that since the look -up tables identifies thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 3-8 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project's disturbed acreage.

TABLE 3-8: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS Construction Activity
Construction Localized Thresholds
NOx
CO
PMlo
PM10
Demolition
118lbs/day
775lbs/day
4lbs/day
4lbs/day
Site Preparation
220 Ibs/day
1,625 Ibs/day
11 Ibs/day
7 Ibs/day
Grading
237lbs/day
1,775lbs/day
12lbs/day
8lbs/day
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008

3.7.2 CONSTRUCTION -SOURCE LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
Table 3-9 identifies the localized impacts to the nearest receptor, represented by location R1 which represents the existing residence at 12383 12th Street, approximately 72 feet (22 meters) north of the Project site. As shown in Table 3-9, after compliance with Rule 403, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Outputs from the model runs for unmitigated construction LSTs are provided in Appendix 3.1.

TABLE 3-9: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION (WITHOUT MITIGATION) Construction
Activity
Year
Emissions (Ibs/day)
NOx
CO
PMla
PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions

24.89 21.74

1.14 0.99
Demolition
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
118
775
4 4
Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
Maximum Daily Emissions

35.95 32.93

7.26 4.16
Site
Preparation
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
220
1,625
11 7
Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
Maximum Daily Emissions

34.29 30.17

4.12 2.31
Grading
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
237
1,775
12 8
Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
Source: CalEEMod unmitigated localized construction -source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1. 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
36 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

OPERATIONAL -SOURCE EMISSIONS LST ANALYSIS
The development of the proposed Project is located on 14.78 acres. As previously stated, the total development is proposed to consist of 128 lots for single-family residential development.

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

3.8 CO "HOT SPOT" ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or "hot spots." An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO "hot spot" analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This "hot spot" analysis did not predict any exceedance of the 1 hours (20.0 ppm) or 8-hour (9.0 ppm) CO standards, as shown on Table 3-10.

TABLE 3-10: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour
Afternoon 1-hour
8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue

4.6 3.5

4.2 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
4 4.5

3.9 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard

3.7 3.1

5.8 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
3 3.1

9.3 Source: 2003 AQMP, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, of the 8.4 ppm 8-hour CO concentration was measured at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection (i.e., the highest CO 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
37 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis generating intersection within the "hot spot" analysis, only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (33). In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The ambient 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 2.1 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respectively (data from East San Bernardino Valley Station for 2021).

Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were ten times the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, due to the on -going improvements in ambient air quality and vehicular emissions controls, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO "hot spot" at any study area intersections. As noted above, only 0.7 ppm were attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at one of the busiest intersections in the SCAB. Therefore if these traffic volumes were multiplied by ten times, it could be expected that the CO attributable to traffic would increase tenfold as well, resulting in 7 ppm — even if this were added to either the 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area, this would result in 9.0 ppm and 8.6 ppm for the 1-hr and 8-hr timeframes, respectively. Neither of which would exceed the applicable 1-hr standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hr standard of 9 ppm.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact (34). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the "hot spot" analysis is shown on Table 3-11. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (35).

TABLE 3-11: TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection Location
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
4,954/2,069
1,830/3,317
721/1,400
560/933
8,062/7,719
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
1,417/1,764
1,342/1,540
2,304/1,832
1,551/2,238
6,614/5,374
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard
2,540/2,243
1,890/2,728
1,384/2,029
821/1,674
6,634/8,674
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
1,217/2,020
1,760/1,400
479/944
756/1,150
4,212/5,514
Source: 2003 AQMP
The proposed Project considered herein would generate 1,207 trips and would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO "hot spot" either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations.

Therefore, CO "hot spots" are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile -source emissions would therefore be less than significant. 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
38 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

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

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

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

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

In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair -share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (36). Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (37). The Project's consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) (38). These indicators are discussed below:

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

Construction Imaacts — Consistencv Criterion 1
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if LSTs or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. Based on the analysis herein, the Project's construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds or LSTs. As such, the Project is consistent with the AQMP with regard to regional construction -source air quality.
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
39 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis Operational Impacts — Consistency Criterion 1
As evaluated, the Project's operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. As such, the Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion.

On the basis of the preceding discussion and the lack of thresholds exceedances, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build -out phase.

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Yucaipa General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Construction Impacts — Consistency Criterion 2
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site's land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance to the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

Operational Impacts — Consistency Criterion 2
The City of Yucaipa General Plan designates the Project site as "Single Residential 20,000 square foot minimum (RS-20M)" land uses (39).

The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment, which would change the land use designation from "Single Residential 20,000 square foot minimum (RS-20M)" to "Single Residential (RS)." The "Single Residential (RS)" designation provides areas for single-family homes on individual lots, accessory and nonresidential uses that complement the neighborhoods. Incidental agricultural, recreational, or compatible uses with residential neighborhoods are permitted. The RS designation allows for a maxim density of 6.1 du/gross acre. The General Plan Amendment would also change the Land Use Modification Overlay of the General Plan to include Starling Heights Specific Plan (39).

The Project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt the Starling Heights Specific Plan and associated standards and regulations for the planning area.

The Project proposes a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No 20372 to subdivide the 14.78-acre site, currently consisting of APN's 0318-021-18, -19, and -58, into 128 single family residential lots and several lettered lots for community features and detention basins that will serve the Project. The proposed residential lots range in size from 3,046 to 3,474 square feet. 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
40 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis As previously stated, the Project is proposed to consist of 128 single family detached residential dwelling units on 14.78 acres. The Project's proposed uses are not consistent with the site's land use designations. As previously stated, the Project is inconsistent with the current land use and zoning designation and would require a General Plan, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map Amendment. Although this finding is inconsistent with the current designation, the Project on an individual basis does not have an impact and as such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized air quality significance thresholds.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

AQMP Consistency Conclusion
The Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations.

Additionally, Project construction and operational -source emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

3.9 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
During short-term construction activity, the Project will also result in some diesel particulate matter (DPM) which is a listed carcinogen and toxic air contaminant (TAC) in the State of California. The 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) revised risk assessment guidelines suggest that construction projects as short as 2-6 months may warrant evaluation. Notwithstanding, based on Urban Crossroad's professional opinion and experience in preparing health risk assessments for development projects, given the distance of the Project from surrounding sensitive receptors, the dominant wind patterns blowing to the northwest away for receptors, and the annual PM2.5 emissions from equipment during each year of construction, any DPM generated from construction activity would result in less than significant ground level concentrations of DPM and not result in a significant health risks and no further evaluation is required.

Furthermore, many air districts throughout the state, including the SCAQMD, are currently evaluating the applicability of age sensitivity factors and have not established CEQA guidance.

More specifically in their response to comments received on SCAQMD New Source Review rule, the SCAQMD explicitly states that:
"The Proposed Amended Rules are separate from the CEQA significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff is currently evaluating how to implement the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will evaluate a variety of options on how to evaluate health risks under the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will conduct public workshops to gather input before bringing recommendations to the Governing Board. In the interim, staff will continue to use the previous guidelines for CEQA determinations."
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
41 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

OPERATIONAL
TACs analysis apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no TAC analysis is needed for operations.

3.10 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The potential impact of Project -generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Further Project traffic would not create or result in a CO "hotspot." Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

3.11 ODORS
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project is residential and does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project's (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
42 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances.

Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (40).

3.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously shown in Table 2-3, the CAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for 03 PM1o, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for 03 and PMZ.s.

The AQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (41). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
...the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions.

The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility -wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project - specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project -related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Construction Impacts
The Project -specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that Project construction -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional or local thresholds. Therefore, Project construction -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
43 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis Operational Impacts
Project operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, Project operational -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
44 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 15223-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank
�%► URBAN
45 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 4 REFERENCES

1. State of California. 2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2019.

2. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 .

3. -. Rule 445 Wood -Burning Devices.

4. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/reg-xi/r1113. pdf.

5. Southern California Air Basins. [Online]
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/maps/scabc7map.pdf .

6. -. Guidance Document forAddressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. 2005.

7. St. Croix Sensory, Inc. The "Gray Line" Between Odor Nuisance and Health Effects. 2000.

8. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). [Online] 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf .

9. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions about General Conformity. EPA. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity#8 .

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. [Online] July 2018. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring- network-plan/annual-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan-v2.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

11. Air Resources Board. State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. [Online] https:Hww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/202l/sad20/appc.pdf.

12. District, South Coast Air Quality Management. Air Quality Data Tables. [Online] https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year .

13. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics .

14. -. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ .

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary- title-i.

16. -. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title II. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act- overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii.

17. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 16, 2018.1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm .

18. California Energy Commission. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions from Homes and Businesses. [Online] August 11, 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standards- improve-efficiency-reduce-0.

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

20. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf . 15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
46 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

21. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast- aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

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

23. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm .

24. California Air Resources Board. EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. 2019.

25. -. EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. 2020.

26. TJW Engineering, Inc. 12th Street and Avenue E Residential Traffic Impact Analysis. 2023.

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

South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

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

29. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Fact Sheet for Applying Ca1EEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.

30. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CaIEEMod. CaIEEMod. [Online] October 2017. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

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

South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2008.

32. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix C: Emission Calculation Details for CaIEEMod. CaIEEMod. [Online] May 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/04_Appendix%20C.pdf.

33. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp .

34. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baagmd.gov/ .

35. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp .

36. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March 2017. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air- quality-management-plan/final-2016-agmp/fina12016agmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.

37. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] September 2020. https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_O.pdf?1606001176.

38. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). 1993.

39. City of Yucaipa. City of Yucaipa General Plan. [Online] 2016. https://yucaipa.org/wp- content/uploads/dev_svcs/general_plan/Yucaipa_General_Plan2016.pdf. 15223-03 AQ Report
�%► URBAN
47 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis

40. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf .

41. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. http://www.agmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf .
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN
48 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 15223-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank.
�%► URBAN
49 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 5 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this energy analysis report represent an accurate depiction of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Rockwell Technical Studies. The information contained in this energy analysis report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

Haseeb Qureshi
Principal
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
[email protected]

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

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

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Planned Communities and Urban Infill — Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene — EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring — California Air Resources Board • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards —Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling— Lakes Environmental • June 2006 15223-03 AQ Report
L'! URBAN
50 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis 15223-03 AQ Report
This page intentionally left blank.
�%► URBAN
51 Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis APPENDIX 2.1:

STATE/FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN

Appendix C
Maps and Tables of Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Appendix C
Maps and Tables of Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
This attachment fulfills the requirement of Health and Safety Code section 40718 for CARB to publish maps that identify areas where one or more violations of any State ambient air quality standard (State standard) or national ambient air quality standard (national standard) have been measured. The national standards are those promulgated under section 109 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7409).

This attachment is divided into three parts. The first part comprises a table showing the levels, averaging times, and measurement methods for each of the State and national standards. This is followed by a section containing maps and tables showing the area designations for each pollutant for which there is a State standard in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 70200. The last section contains maps and tables showing the most current area designations for the national standards.

C-1

Ambient Air Quality Standards
(Updated 5/4/16)
Po■ataat
/Aye q
r..e
Cailorrs Sht�h '
Nwiiorial ids
cn.cO11111ha im '
Medk d .
pd"
W
Rkdwd ,
1 Haur

4.09 ppm (1,30 pghrr)
—
Same as Primary
Ultraviolet
Ozone (d )
lJttraviolet Photometry
Standard
Photometry
Hour

0.070 ppm (137 pgfrtN}

0.070 ppm (137 pglnr)
ReWbaW
24 How
s0 pglYr
1s0 Fqw
byw �
P
Glav�eu or
.aac as P1
mud [FarEerir
JlasuelJlFiMefc
Ileac
20M
fj
—
lb ���
A�uusrw
Stud
Fine
Particulate
24 Hour
35 pgrm
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
Matter
Annual Arithmetic
12 p4t�
Gravimetric ar Beta

12.0 pglm
15 pg1nY
and Gravimetric
Analysis
PM2.5
Mean
Attenuation
C=b=
i hour
20 ppm (23 mgW
xa■
35 ppm (40 hW
—
Ilou p�persi�e
a 1kw
9A pp. (10 -AV)
9 pp. (10 -AV)
—
Moioltide
sire
Yisred Fbakewiy
Yiared Pbaburiy
a Wwr (Lustre
g PPM (T Now
—
—
Tab-)
Nitrogen
1 Hour

0.13 ppm (339 pgim ;
100 ppb (1$3 pglni )
—
Dioxide
Gas Phase
Gas Phase
Annual Arithmetic
Same as Primary
Ghemiluminescence
Ghemiluminescence
ENOJI
Mean

0.030 ppm (57 pg/nY)

0.053 ppm (100 pg/nr)
Standard
1 now
025 pp-(M pgW)
75 Ppb (196 pqW
—
3 hour
—
—
0 ppm {7300
i■rf:IXoltide
Ilfiarc�t
pg�}
��
014 PPS
2411oar
OA4 pp- (105 ppW)
{tor —111110 areas]"
—
AasuMAESmefc
0A30 ppm
Yeas
(tor ce��i areasj"
—
30Day Average

1.5pg1re
—
—
High Volume

1.5 pg+rri
1z r=
Calendar auarter
—
AtnmicAbso-rptinn
(far certain areas!'
Same as Primary
Sampler and Atomic
Standard
Absorption
Rolling 3Manth
—

0.15 pglnr
Average
Yew
Bch Aftwomillika and
RelhuAig
a RDW
See tboYab 14
Tiaasmm u
11"Muc w-
tour} FSrTape
N G
National
Standards
Sulfates
24 Hour
2E pg;m
Ian Chromatography
HydFOgM
Side
1 RDW
OA3 ppn (42 pgW
�arcrt
FYo.esce.oe
Vinyl
Chloride"
t= -cur

0.01 ppm (2G 4v)
'a4
Chrcmatcgraphy
See 100doks a =A t page ...

C-2

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to

0.070 ppm.

9. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 pg/m3 to 12.0 pg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 pg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 pg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 pg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SOz standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SOz national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 pg/m3)as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14. In 1989, the CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

C-3

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality
Standards
The following maps and tables show the area designations for each pollutant with a State standard set forth in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200. Each area is identified as attainment, nonattainment, nonattainment-transitional, or unclassified for each pollutant, as shown below:

Attainment A
Nonattainment N
Nonattainment-Transitional NA-T
Unclassified U
In general, CARB designates areas by air basin for pollutants with a regional impact and by county for pollutants with a more local impact. However, when there are areas within an air basin or county with distinctly different air quality deriving from sources and conditions not affecting the entire air basin or county, CARB may designate a smaller area. Generally, when boundaries of the designated area differ from the air basin or county boundaries, the description of the specific area is referenced at the bottom of the summary table.

C-4

Figure 1
COAST
III
-''- Shasta
Trinity !?Lassen
Tehama
SACRAMENTO Plumes
VALLEY
LAKE
COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA Marin
San Francisco
San Matei
Santa
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Unclassified
Attainment
® Nonattainment-Transitional
Nonattainment
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
OZONE
N
k
0 50 100 150 200
Miles
Sutter Buttes
_MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES
-LAKE TAHOE
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
469*ZW—
y
SOUTH COAST Ora n!
ob

SAN DIEGO
C-5

Table 1
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Ozone' N
NA-T
U
A

REAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
Alpine County
U
In o County
N
Mono Count
N

KE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

KE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

OJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
N

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Amador Count
NA-T
Calaveras County
N
El Dorado Count (portion)
N
Mariposa County
N
Nevada County
N
Placer Count (portion)
N
Plumas County
U
Sierra County
U
Tuolumne County
N

ORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

ORTH COAST AIR BASIN
I
I
I
I A
N
NA-T
U
A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Colusa and Glenn Counties
A
Shasta Count
NA-T
Sutter/Yuba Counties
Sutter Buttes
N
Remainder of Sutter County
N
Yuba County
N
Yolo/Solano Counties
NA-T
Remainder of Air Basin
N

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
N

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
N

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR
BASIN
N

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
San Luis Obispo County
N
Santa Barbara County
N
Ventura County
N

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
N
' AB 3048 (Olberg) and AB 2525 (Miller) signed into law in 1996, made changes to Health and Safety Code, section 40925.5. One of the changes allows nonattainment districts to become nonattainment-transitional for ozone by operation of law.

C-6

Figure 2
TEAU
TL Lassen
.

W*1
BAY AREA Marin" Safn
ra I I
oacluln
C11ii
San Francisco 11 1� 4.& I*A'
Alameda
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
NOR
CENT L
C AST
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
F—lUnclassified
Attainment
Nonattainment
Air Basin
County
Last Updated October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM10
N
A
0 50 1 DO 150 200
Miles

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
& Yosemite NP
0 .'Was-
wo
TV—
Wa
Oran� �T

SOUTH COAST
riyb
C-7

Table 2
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Suspended Particulate Matter (PM,o)
N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
N

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
N

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
N

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Amador County
U
Calaveras County
N
El Dorado Count (portion)
N
Mariposa Count
Yosemite National Park
N
Remainder of County
U
Nevada County
N
Placer Count (portion)
N
Plumas County
N
Sierra County
N
Tuolumne County
U
N
U
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
N

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
Del Norte, Mendocino, Sonoma (portion)
and Trinity Counties
A
Remainder of Air Basin
N

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
Siski ou Count
A
Remainder of Air Basin
U

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Shasta County
A
Remainder of Air Basin
N

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
N

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
N

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
N

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
N
M.

Figure 3
r � _
• i - •1•1• •1•1. v •
�1f� 1/111�!!' 1•�>>1.1.1.111•f1�V
♦11•�i�1•.•1❖.❖1•1•.��
�111..1�1 • • • ��
�•..•�•�1��•i1i1i1�1�•�1�f
►1��1��i
�11�1����1
��.11�.11�.111111�
�•1.1.1.1.1•+• •' . � e
• �.11K
�1111�
r�1•1•1•1•1•1��•1•1❖1•.��
� �►•1/1t� 1•4•1❖1• _
�A1� ♦1.1111. -
• . • - 1.1.1111 ' -
• • • 11111 N
- • �, ••�❖1❖1•� 1•11••
♦111111111�
.1.1.1.1
C-9

Table 3
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
A
Plumas Count
A
- Portola Valley'
N
Remainder of Air Basin
U

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
/a

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
/a

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Butte County
N
Colusa County
A
Glenn County
A
Placer Count (portion)
A
Sacramento County
A
Shasta County
A
Sutter and Yuba Counties
A
Remainder of Air Basin
U
1 California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(c) 2 California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(a) N
U
A

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
Imperial County
- City of Calexicoz
N
Remainder of Air Basin
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
N

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
N

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
N
C-10

Figure 4
Siskiyou I Modoc

NORTHEAST

PLATEAU
Trinity Shasta Lassen
Tehanna
SACRAMENTO umas::
loci 0
Glenn Siert
LAKE
COUNTY

SANFRANCISCO
BAY AREA Marin
San Francisco
Ak
San Mateo
Santa ruz'
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
El Dorados
'ram'
Merced
Madera
San
Benito Fresno',.,.

Luis
SOUTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Unclassified
Attainment
Air Basin
County
Last Updated October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARBON MONOXIDE
N
A
0 50 1 DO 150 200
Miles

MOUNTAIN
AIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
I rnpLrial
C-1 1

Table 4
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Carbon Monoxide*
N
NA-T
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
Alpine County
U
In o County
A
Mono County
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
Kern Count (portion)
U
Los Angeles Count (portion)
A
Riverside Count (portion)
U
San Bernardino Count (portion)
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Amador County
U
Calaveras County
U
El Dorado Count (portion)
U
Mariposa County
U
Nevada County
U
Placer Count (portion)
U
Plumas County
A
Sierra County
U
Tuolumne County
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
Monterey County
A
San Benito County
U
Santa Cruz County
U

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
Del Norte County
U
Humboldt County
A
Mendocino County
A
Sonoma County (portion)
U
Trinity County
U

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U
N
NA-T
U
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Butte County
A
Colusa County
U
Glenn County
U
Placer Count (portion)
A
Sacramento County
A
Shasta County
U
Solano Count (portion)
A
Sutter County
A
Tehama County
U
Yolo County
A
Yuba County
U

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
Fresno County
A
Kern Count (portion)
A
Kings County
U
Madera County
U
Merced County
U
San Joaquin County
A
Stanislaus County
A
Tulare County
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
A
* The area designated for carbon monoxide is a county or portion of a county C-12

Figure 5
IVIcooc
r: ORTHEAST;::::

NORTH ..-.

PLATEAU
COAST _:

Shasta
Tnndy.`
Lassen
:i
"Tehama
,SACRAMENTO-Plumas,-
';`VALLEY'
Mendocino - -
''Glenn Bulle � Sleri
Nevada
LAKE
Colusa�'-'Yuba a
Lake utter Placer
COUNTY
El Dora
Sonoma'. Napa Sac.Amad r
SANFRANCISCO .`"
ulano
Solana"

BAY AREA
r Call. -
:.can':a..
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

NITROGEN DIOXIDE
N
A
D 50 100 150 20D
Mlles

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
Attainment u s
Nonattainment SAN DIEGO
Calexico
Air Basin
County
Last Updated; October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
C-13

Table 5
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Nitrogen Dioxide
N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A
N
U
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
CA 60 Near -road Portion of San Bernardino,
Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties
A
Remainder of Air Basin
A
C-14

Figure 6
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: Octolber 2021
Air Ouality planning and Science Division, CARB
C-15

Table 6
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Sulfur Dioxide*
N
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A
N
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
A
* The area designated for sulfur dioxide is a county or portion of a county. Since all areas in the State are in attainment for this standard, air basins are indicated here for simplicity.

C-16

Figure 7
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: Octolber 2021
Air Ouality planning and Science Division, CARB
C-17

Table 7
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Sulfates N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A
N
U
I A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
A
MR

Figure 8
LAKE
COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA ..

Attainment
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
LEAD
N
A
0 50 100 150 200

SAN DIEGO
C-19

Table 8
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Lead (particulate)*
N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
A

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
A
N
U
A

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
A

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
A
* The area designated for lead is a county or portion of a county. Since all areas in the State are in attainment for this standard, air basins are indicated here for simplicity.

C-20

Figure 9
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Del HYDROGEN SULFIDE
Norte
Sisklyou Modoc N
NORTHEASTn
NORTH'.:,';';: PLATEAU A
COAST:.;: ?
0 50 1D0 150 200
Trinity Shasta Lassen miles
Humboldt
Tehama
SACRAMENTO Plumas
VALLEY
Mendocino sierra MOUNTAIN
Glenn ButtYN-.,

COUNTIES
ada
11 COUNTY Ceke.Colusa;utterlba Placer

LAKE TAHOE
Geyser Yolo El Dorado City of Sutter Creek
Geothermal
Sonoma Napa Sac A or Alpine".'.:.

SAN FRANCISCO fSolaano
Calaveras
BAY AREA Marl Contra San Tuolumne
Costa Joaquin GREAT
Mono
San Francisco Alameda BASIN
Stanislaus Mariposa VALLEYS
San Mateo Santa
Clara Merced
Santa Cruz Madera
San SAN JOAQUIN
NORTH Benito Fresno VALLEY
CENTRAL Kings Tulare
COAST Monterey Searles Valley
n
Luis Kem
SOUTH
CENTRAL San Bernardino
COAST
Ventura Los Angeles MOJAVE DESERT
f�bp
Riverside
SOUTH COAST Orange
SALTON
Unclassified SEA
San Diego Imperial
Attainment
Nonattainment SAN DIEGO
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
C-21

Table 9
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Hydrogen Sulfide*
N
NA-T
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
Alpine County
U
In o County
A
Mono County
A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
Kern Count (portion)
U
Los Angeles Count (portion)
U
Riverside County (portion)
U
San Bernardino Count (portion)
Searles Valley Planning Area'
N
Remainder of County
U

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Amador Count
City of Sutter Creek
N
Remainder of County
U
Calaveras County
U
El Dorado Count (portion)
U
Mariposa County
U
Nevada County
U
Placer Count (portion)
U
Plumas County
U
Sierra County
U
Tuolumne County
U
N
NA-T
U
A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
Del Norte County
U
Humboldt County
A
Mendocino County
U
Sonoma Count (portion)
Geyser Geothermal Areal
A
Remainder of County
U
Trinity County
U

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
U

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
U

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
San Luis Obispo County
A
Santa Barbara County
A
Ventura County
U

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
U
* The area designated for hydrogen sulfide is a county or portion of a county 1 52 Federal Register 29384 (August 7, 1987)
2 California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 60200(d) C-22

Figure 10
Siskiyou ' Mcdoc

NORTHEAST

PLATEAU
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Tehama
SACRAMENTO Plumes
VALLEY
Glenn
�utte Sierra MOUNTAIN
LAKE
COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA Marin
San Francisco
San Mate
Santa
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Unclassified
Attainment
Air Basin
County

COUNTIES
Nevada
Yuba i
sa�utter Placer LAKE TAHOE
Yolo El Dorado
Sac Amad _Alpine
io aano
Calavera s
;cntra San Tuolumne
Costa SJoaquin Mono GREAT
ameda � BASIN
Stanislaus Mariposa VALLEYS
Santa
Clara Merced
Madera
San SAN JOAQUIN
Benito Fresno VALLEY
Kings Tulare Ingo
Monterey
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
SOUTH
CENTRAL Santa
COAST Barbara
Ventura Los Angeles
SOUTH COAST Orange
m

SAN DIEGO
Last Updated: October 2021
Air Ouality Planning and Science Division, CARB
2021
Area Designations for State
Ambient Air Quality Standards

VISIBILITY REDUCING PARTICLES
N
A
0 50 100 150 200
Miles
San Bernardino

MOJAVE DESERT
ISEA
San Diego Imperial
C-23

Table 10
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designation for Visibility Reducing Particles
N
NA-T
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
U

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U
N
NA-T
U
A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U

SALTON SEA AIR BASIN
U

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
U

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
U
C-24

Area Designations for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The following maps and tables show the area designations for each pollutant with a national ambient air quality standard. Additional information about the federal area designations is available on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) website:
https://www.epa.gov/green-book
Over the last several years, U.S. EPA has been reviewing the levels of the various national standards. The agency has already promulgated new standard levels for some pollutants and is considering revising the levels for others. Information about the status of these reviews is available on the U.S. EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants
Designation Categories
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM,o). The U.S. EPA uses three categories to designate areas with respect to PM,o:

Attainment (A)
Nonattainment (N)
Unclassifiable (U)
Ozone, Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The U.S. EPA uses two categories to designate areas with respect to these standards:

Nonattainment (N)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (U/A)
The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005, and the area designations map reflects the 2015 national 8-hour ozone standard of

0.070 ppm. Area designations were finalized on August 3, 2018.

On December 14, 2012, the U.S. EPA established a new national annual primary PM2.5 standard of 12.0 pg/m3. Area designations were finalized in December 2014. The current designation map reflects the most recently revised (2012) annual average standard of 12.0 pg/m3 as well as the 24-hour standard of 35 pg/m3, revised in 2006.

On January 22, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new national 1-hour NO2 standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and retained the annual average standard of 53 ppb.

Designations for the primary NO2 standard became effective on February 29, 2012. All areas of California meet this standard.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). The U.S. EPA uses three categories to designate areas with respect to the 24-hour and annual average sulfur dioxide standards. These designation categories are:
• Nonattainment (N),
• Unclassifiable (U), and
• Unclassifiable/Attainment (U/A).

C-25

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). At the same time, U.S. EPA revoked the 24-hour and annual average standards. Area designations for the 1-hour SO2 standard were finalized on December 21, 2017 and are reflected in the area designations map.

Lead (particulate). The U.S. EPA promulgated a new rolling 3-month average lead standard in October 2008 of 0.15 pg/m3. Designations were made for this standard in November 2010.

Designation Areas
From time to time, the boundaries of the California air basins have been changed to facilitate the planning process. CARB generally initiates these changes, and they are not always reflected in the U.S. EPA's area designations. For purposes of consistency, the maps in this attachment reflect area designation boundaries and nomenclature as promulgated by the U.S. EPA. In some cases, these may not be the same as those adopted by CARB. For example, the national area designations reflect the former Southeast Desert Air Basin. In accordance with Health and Safety Code section 39606.1, CARB redefined this area in 1996 to be the Mojave Desert Air Basin and Salton Sea Air Basin. The definitions and boundaries for all areas designated for the national standards can be found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 81.305. They are available on the web at:
https://ecfr . io/Title-40/se40.20.81 1305
C-26

Figure 11
COAST
Tuscan Buttes
LAKE
Siskiyou
Modoc
NORTHEAS_
a
TEAULassenTO Plumesutte SierrNe' .adaubar placer,

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
MariJMat-so
San Fra
San
Santa Cru:

NORTH
CENTR
COAST
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
8-HOUR OZONE
N
A
0 30 100 750 200
Giles
_ Sutter Buttes

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
Mono GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
1�•1!:�4Y�iir►•iiiAntelope Valley
1 Mand
IN
`�i�:�i�►��!i!i!i�i!i!i!i!i�a�.Western Mojave Desert
SOUTH
CENTRAL Sant
COAST Barbara
a
0 Unclassified/Attainment
Nonattainment
Air Basin
County
Last Updated: October 2021
Map reflects the 2015 8-hour ozone standard of 0 070 prim Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB
���"a
�N
SOUTH COAST rang
a.

SAN
DIEGO
C-27

Table 11
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for 8-Hour Ozone*
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Amador County
N
Calaveras County
N
El Dorado County (portion)'
N
Mariposa County
N
Nevada County
Western Nevada County
N
Remainder of County
U/A
Placer County (portion)'
N
Plumas County
U/A
Sierra County
U/A
Tuolumne County
N

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Butte County
N
Colusa County
U/A
Glenn County
U/A
Sacramento Metro Area'
N
Shasta County
U/A
Sutter County
Sutter Buttes
N
Southern portion of Sutter County'
N
Remainder of Sutter County
U/A
Tehama County
Tuscan Buttes
N
Remainder of Tehama County
U/A
N
U/A
SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN (cont.)
Yolo County'
N
Yuba County
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
N

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
N

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
San Luis Obispo County
Eastern San Luis Obispo County
N
Remainder of County
U/A
Santa Barbara County
U/A
Ventura County
- Area excluding Anacapa and San
Nicolas Islands
N
- Channel Islands2
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
N

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
Kern County (portion)
N
- Indian Wells Valley
U/A
Imperial County
N
Los Angeles County (portion)
N
Riverside County (portion)
Coachella Valley
N
Non-AQMA portion
U/A
San Bernardino County
Western portion (AQMA)
N
Eastern portion (non-AQMA)
U/A
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

NOTE: This map and Table reflect the 2015 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. 1 For this purpose, the Sacramento Metro Area comprises all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, the Sacramento Valley Air Basin portion of Solano County, the southern portion of Sutter County, and the Sacramento Valley and Mountain Counties Air Basins portions of Placer and El Dorado counties.
2 South Central Coast Air Basin Channel Islands:

Santa Barbara County includes Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara Islands.

Ventura County includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands.

South Coast Air Basin:

Los Angeles County includes San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands.

C-28

Figure 12
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Del PM10
Norte
Siskiyou
NORTHEASIModoc

NORTH PLATEAU N
COAST
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt o K too 150 zoo-
Gel tlas
Tehema
SAC
RAMENTO Plumas
Mendocino lennLEY Butte Sierra MOUNTAIN
LAKE Nevada COUNTIES
COUNTY Colusa Yuba
Lake Sutter Placer LAKE TAHOE
Yolo EI Dorado Sacramento
Alpine Sonoma Napa::'::.'. County
,
SAN FRANCISCO :Sac' Amador r Mono Mono
BAY AREA Marin Solana.. '.,.: Calaveras Basin
Contra Tuolumne Mammoth
Costa Joaquin; Lake
San Francisco GREAT
Mari osa,,:::;:, BASIN
Alameda'�'�'�"' P
—Sta nlslaus ::,:. VALLEYS
San Mateo Santa
Clare
1::2:';':'.`::; Inyo
Santa Cruz
SanE;;ic:::>.`; :iSAN'JOAQUIN Owens
Benito Fresno VALLEY Valley
NORTH ' :f.: `..`;=:Tula�e';:iil;) Coso
Junction
CENTRAL Monterey '`'' :`.., ,:. Trona
COAST >
San ` >
Luis Kern I Bran
Obispo Wells , San Bernardino

7. 10 Valley
SOUTH Santa
CENTRAL Barbara SOUTHEAST DESERT
COAST Ventura L'os Angeles
Riverside
:Orange'',`:_aii;:;:{. Coachella
SOUTH COAST Valley
Unclassified
Irn'.:erial
Attainment San Diego
Nonattainment

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Air Basin
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
C-29

Table 12
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Suspended Particulate Matter (PM,o)*
N
U
A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
Alpine County
U
Inyo County
Owens Valley Planning Area
N
Coso Junction
A
Remainder of County
U
Mono County
Mammoth Lake Planning Area
A
Mono Lake Basin
N
Remainder of County
U

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Sacramento County'
A
Remainder of Air Basin
U

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U
N
U
A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
A

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
Eastern Kern County
Indian Wells Valley
A
Portion within San Joaquin Valley
Planning Area
N
- Remainder of County
U
Imperial County
Imperial Valley Planning Area'
A
Remainder of County
U
Los Angeles County (portion)
U
Riverside County (portion)
Coachella Valley
N
Non-AQMA portion
U
San Bernardino County
Trona
N
Remainder of County
N
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305. 1 Air quality in Sacramento County meets the national PM10 standards. The request for redesignation to attainment was approved by U.S. EPA in September 2013.
2 The request for redesignation to attainment for the Imperial Valley Planning Area was approved by U.S. EPA in September 2020, effective October 2020.

C-30

Figure 13

NORTH COAST

LAKE COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA
Unclassified/Attainment
Nonattainment
Air Basin
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM2.5

SOUTH COAST-
r th

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
C-31

Table 13
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
Plumas County
Portola Valley Portion of Plumas
N
Remainder of Plumas County
U/A
Remainder of Air Basin
U/A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
Sacramento Metro Areal
N
Remainder of Air Basin
U/A
N
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U/A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
N

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
N

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
N

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
Imperial County (portion)'
N
Remainder of Air Basin
U/A
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305. This map reflects the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard as well as the 1997 and 2012 PM2.5 annual standards. 1 For this purpose, Sacramento Metro Area comprises all of Sacramento and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Yolo Counties. Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017.
2 Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017.
3 Those lands of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahulla Mission Indians in Riverside County are designated Unclassifiable/Attainment. 4 That portion of Imperial County encompassing the urban and surrounding areas of Brawley, Calexico, El Centro, Heber, Holtville, Imperial, Seeley, and Westmorland. Air quality in this area meets the national PM2.5 standards. A Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was made by U.S. EPA in June 2017.

C-32

Figure 14
NORTH
COAST
Siskiyou , Modoc

NORTHEAST
jf Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Tehama
EN TO Plumes

VALLEYS
orano
Glenn � Butte Siern
LAKE -
nutter
COUNTY
Yolo
El C
Napa
Sonoma
Sac Ama

SAN FRANCISCO
al
BAY AREA Marin
Solano
Cal
San
Contra Joaquin
San Francisco
Costa}
la
lamed
Stanislau
San Mateo
Santa
Clara
Marc
Santa Cruz
Sa
NORTH
Benito

CENTRAL
COAST
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARBON MONOXIDE
N
k
0 50 '.DO 150 295
r,i ii.,

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES

LAKE TAHOE
Mon , GREAT
_BASIN
BAST N

VALLEYS

SAN JOAQUIN
Fresno VALLEY
TulanyD
re
Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
SOUTH

CENTRAL SOUTHEAST DESERT
COAST Santa
Barbara Ventura Los Angeles San Bernardino
Orange Riverside

SOUTH COAST
0 San Diego Imperial
Unclassified/Attainment SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Air Basin
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
C-33

Table 14
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Carbon Monoxide*
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A
N
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U/A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
U/A
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

C-34

Figure 15
Siskiyou
Modoc

NORTHEAST

NORTH PLATEAU
COAST
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt
Tehema
SACRAMENTO Plumas
Mendocino VALLEY
Glenn Butte S
Nev_a_d_a
Colusa Yuba
LAKE Lake Sutter Placer
COUNTY
Yclo El Doraa
Sonoma Napa
Sac Amador"

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA Madn Salano San Calaver
r' '
San Francisco
I
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

NITROGEN DIOXIDE
N
A
0 SQ '.00 150 299
r. lfti

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES
-LAKE TAHOE
Mono GREAT
BASIN
t_ VALLEYS
San w SAN JOAQUIN
Benito Fresno VALLEY
Tulare nyD
Monterey Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
SOUTH CENTRAL Santa SOUTHEAST DESERT
COAST Barbara
Ventura An Los geles San Bernardino
Riverside
SOUTH COAST Orange
0 San Diego 4mperial
Unclassi#iedlAttainment SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Air Basin
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
C-35

Table 15
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Nitrogen Dioxide*
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A
N
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U/A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
U/A
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

C-36

Figure 16
Slsklyou
Modoc

NORTHEAST

NORTH PLATEAU
COAST
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
umboldt
Tehema
SACRAMENTO Plumas
endocino VALLEY
Glenn Butte Siem
Colusa Ne ada
LAKE Lake Yuba Placer
COUNTY Sutter
Yolo El
Sac An

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA Solano
Marin C San C
San Francisco
AI
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
NORTH

CENTRAL
COAST
Santa
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

SULFUR DIOXIDE
N
k
0 5C 100 150 ND
Pel tls

MOUNTAIN

COUNTIES
—LAKE TAHOE
Mono
%arbara
SAN JOAQUIN'�
VALLEY
Tulare
ings
Kern
nta
rbara
4%/..t­
GREAT
BASIN

VALLEYS
Inyo

SOUTHEAST DESERT
Orange Riverside

SOUTH COAST
UnclassifiedlAttainment
San Diego Imperial
Air Basin SAN DIEGO COUNTY
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
C-37

Table 16
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Sulfur Dioxide*
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U/A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN'
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
U/A
* Definitions and references for all areas can be found in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Part 81.305.

NOTE: This map and table reflect the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb. ' South Central Coast Air Basin Channel Islands:

Santa Barbara County includes Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara Islands.

Ventura County includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands.

Note that the San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands are considered part of Los Angeles County, and therefore, are included as part of the South Coast Air Basin.

Figure 17
Area Designations for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Del
LEAD
Norte Siskiyou
Modoc

NORTHEAST

NORTH PLATEAU
N
COAST
n
S
Shasta
N
Trinity
Lassen
Humboldt
o
50 100 150 200
Tehama
iii-
SACRAMENTO Plumas

VALLEY-'
endocino Butte Sierra
Glenn

MOUNTAIN
eva_d_a

COUNTIES
olusa Yuba
Lake Sutter Placer
LAKE

LAKE TAHOE
COUNTY Yoio El Dorado
Napa Alpin
Sonoma Sac Amador

SAN FRANCISCO
Solano
BAY AREA Man Calaveras
San
Contra Joaquin Tuolumne
GREAT
Costa Mono
San Frannisco
BASIN
lamed Sta sm laus Mariposa

VALLEYS
San Mateo
Santa
Clara Merced
Santa Cruz Madera
San SAN JOAQUIN
anito Fresno VALLEY
NORTH
CENTRAL Tulare
Inyo
COAST Monterey Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
SOUTH

CENTRAL

SOUTHEAST DESERT
COAST SantaBarbara
Ventura Los Angeles San Bernardino
4110UA
Orange Riverside

SOUTH COAST
O
San Diego
Imperial
Unclassified/Attainment
Nonattainment SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Air Basin
County
Source Date:

October 2021
Air Quality Planning and Science Division
C-39

Table 17
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Area Designations for Lead (particulate)
N
U/A

GREAT BASIN VALLEYS AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE COUNTY AIR BASIN
U/A

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN
U/A

MOUNTAIN COUNTIES AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTH COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

NORTHEAST PLATEAU AIR BASIN
U/A

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A
N
U/A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
U/A

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
U/A

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN
U/A

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Los Angeles Count (portion)'
N
Remainder of Air Basin
U/A

SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
U/A
Portion of County in Air Basin, not including Channel Islands C-40

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN

Rockwell Technical Studies Air Quality Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 3.1:

CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
15223-03 AQ Report
L%► URBAN

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 15223 -Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
1 / 33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
2/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
3/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
4/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version

1.2. Land Use Types
Single Family 128
Housing
Dwelling Unit 6.39
15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction)
1 /1 /2024
Project/site
County

2.50 1.80
32994 Avenue E, Yucaipa, CA 92399, USA
San Bernardino -South Coast
Yucaipa
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
5166
10 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.13
278,548
1,499,246 —
424
5/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Parking Lot 81.0 Space 0.73 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt 7.66 Acre 7.66 0.00 0.00
Surfaces

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 4.56 3.66 36.8 33.2 0.07 1.48 3.45 4.94 1.36 1.18 2.54 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.55 64.7 36.9 34.1 0.07 1.60 5.89 7.49 1.47 2.74 4.21 Average - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 1.85 6.22 14.0 15.5 0.03 0.59 1.01 1.59 0.54 0.34 0.88 - Annual - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Max)
Unmit. 0.34 1.13 2.56 2.83 < 0.005 0.11 0.18 0.29 0.10 0.06 0.16 -

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 6/33
Guest parking
8,857 8,857 0.50 0.38 5.32 8,988
8,834 8,834 0.50 0.38 0.14 8,960
3,296
3,296

0.16 0.10

1.10 3,331
546
546

0.03 0.02

0.18 551

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2024

4.56 3.66

36.8 33.2

0.07 1.48

3.45 4.94

1.36 1.18

2.54 -
2025

1.72 1.44

11.9 18.0

0.03 0.47

0.70 1.17

0.43 0.17

0.60 -
Daily -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
2024

4.55 3.73

36.9 34.1

0.07 1.60

5.89 7.49

1.47 2.74

4.21 -
2025

2.98 64.7

20.7 30.0

0.04 0.86

1.02 1.88

0.79 0.24

1.03 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
2024

1.85 1.53

14.0 15.5

0.03 0.59

1.01 1.59

0.54 0.34

0.88 -
2025

1.32 6.22

9.27 13.4

0.02 0.37

0.53 0.90

0.34 0.13

0.47 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2024

0.34 0.28

2.56 2.83
< 0.005

0.11 0.18

0.29 0.10

0.06 0.16 -
2025

0.24 1.13

1.69 2.44
< 0.005

0.07 0.10

0.16 0.06

0.02 0.09 -

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 8,857
8,857

0.50 0.38

5.32 8,988
3,640
3,640

0.16 0.10

3.42 3,677
8,834
8,834

0.50 0.38

0.14 8,960
5,588
5,588

0.25 0.12

0.12 5,632
3,296
3,296

0.16 0.10

1.08 3,331
2,732
2,732

0.12 0.07

1.10 2,758
546
546

0.03 0.02

0.18 551
452
452

0.02 0.01

0.18 457
Onsite - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
7/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 3.12

2.62 24.9

21.7 0.03

1.06 -

1.06 0.98
-

0.98 -
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
-
-

0.08 0.08
-

0.01 0.01 -
n
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
Daily
Off -Road 0.25

0.21 1.98

1.73 < 0.005

0.08 -

0.08 0.08
-

0.08 -
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
-
-

0.01 0.01
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
n
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road 0.05

0.04 0.36

0.32 < 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.01
-

0.01 -
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
n
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.08

0.07 0.09

0.96 0.00

0.00 0.20

0.20 0.00

0.05 0.05 -
Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
8/33
3,425
3,425

0.14 0.03 -
3,437

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 272
272

0.01 < 0.005 -
273

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 45.1

45.1 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

45.2 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200

24.5 24.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 25.6

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.08

0.05 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 -
Average - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.08 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.02 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Annual - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.3. Site Preparation (2024)
- Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily,
ton/yr for annual)
and
GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 - 1.60 1.47 - 1.47 Equipment
Dust - - - - - - 5.66 5.66 - 2.69 2.69
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - truck
Average - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily

65.6 65.6

0.01 0.01
< 0.005

68.9 15.9

15.9 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 16.2

1.94 1.94
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.04 5.21

5.21 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

5.48 2.64

2.64 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.68 0.32

0.32 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.34 0.86

0.86 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.91 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 - 5,314

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Off -Road

0.18 0.15

1.48 1.35
< 0.005

0.07 -

0.07 0.06
-

0.06 -
Equipment
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.23 0.23
-

0.11 0.11 -
From
Material
Movemen
:

Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Off -Road

0.03 0.03

0.27 0.25
< 0.005

0.01 -

0.01 0.01
-

0.01 -
Equipment
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.04 0.04
-

0.02 0.02 -
From
Material
Movemen
:

Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.10 0.09

0.10 1.12

0.00 0.00

0.23 0.23

0.00 0.05

0.05 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
- -
10/33
218 218 0.01 < 0.005 - 218

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 36.0

36.0 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

36.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
231
231

0.01 0.01

0.03 234

12.5 12.5
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

13.1 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 9.62

9.62 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 9.76

0.52 0.52
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.54 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - Hauling 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

3.5. Grading (2024)
- Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 4.19

3.52 34.3

30.2 0.06

1.45 -

1.45 1.33
-

1.33 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-
-
-
-

2.67 2.67
-

0.98 0.98 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 4.19

3.52 34.3

30.2 0.06

1.45 -

1.45 1.33
-

1.33 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-
-
-
-

2.67 2.67
-

0.98 0.98 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily

1.59 1.59
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.62 0.09

0.09 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.09 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 - 6,621

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 - 6,621

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 / 33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Off -Road

0.49 0.41

4.04 3.55

0.01 0.17
-

0.17 0.16
-

0.16 -
Equipment
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.31 0.31
-

0.12 0.12 -
From
Material
Movemen
:

Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
Off -Road

0.09 0.08

0.74 0.65
< 0.005

0.03 -

0.03 0.03
-

0.03 -
Equipment
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.06 0.06
-

0.02 0.02 -
From
Material
Movemen
:

Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.11 0.10

0.10 1.69

0.00 0.00

0.26 0.26

0.00 0.06

0.06 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.26 0.04

2.38 1.33

0.01 0.04

0.51 0.55

0.02 0.14

0.16 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.11 0.10

0.11 1.28

0.00 0.00

0.26 0.26

0.00 0.06

0.06 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.25 0.04

2.48 1.34

0.01 0.04

0.51 0.55

0.02 0.14

0.16 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.16

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.03

0.00 0.01

0.01 -
12/33
777 777 0.03 0.01 - 780

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 129
129

0.01 < 0.005 -
129

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
288
288

0.01 0.01

1.15 292

36.1 36.1
< 0.005

0.01 0.10

37.8 1,935
1,935

0.21 0.31

4.07 2,037
264
264

0.01 0.01

0.03 267

36.1 36.1
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005

37.7 1,936
1,936

0.21 0.31

0.11 2,034

31.5 31.5
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 32.0

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.30 0.16
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.06 0.06
< 0.005

0.02 0.02 -
Annual - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.7. Building Construction (2024) -
Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 1.55

1.30 12.2

14.2 0.03

0.54 - 0.54

0.49 - 0.49 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- - -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 1.55

1.30 12.2

14.2 0.03

0.54 - 0.54

0.49 - 0.49 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- - -
Daily
Off -Road 0.74

0.62 5.84

6.82 0.01

0.26 - 0.26

0.24 - 0.24 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 -
truck

4.25 4.25
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 4.45
228
228

0.03 0.04

0.21 240

5.22 5.22
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 5.29

0.70 0.70
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.74 37.8

37.8 < 0.005

0.01 0.03

39.7 2,630
2,630

0.11 0.02
- 2,639

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,630
2,630

0.11 0.02
- 2,639

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,261
1,261

0.05 0.01
- 1,265

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
13/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Annual
Off -Road

0.14 0.11

1.06 1.24
< 0.005

0.05 -

0.05 0.04
-

0.04 -
Equipment
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.26 0.24

0.22 3.90

0.00 0.00

0.60 0.60

0.00 0.14

0.14 -
Vendor

0.04 0.01

0.42 0.23
< 0.005

0.01 0.10

0.11 0.01

0.03 0.03 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.25 0.23

0.26 2.95

0.00 0.00

0.60 0.60

0.00 0.14

0.14 -
Vendor

0.04 0.01

0.44 0.23
< 0.005

0.01 0.10

0.11 0.01

0.03 0.03 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker

0.12 0.11

0.13 1.48

0.00 0.00

0.29 0.29

0.00 0.07

0.07 -
Vendor

0.02 < 0.005

0.21 0.11
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.05 0.05
< 0.005

0.01 0.02 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker

0.02 0.02

0.02 0.27

0.00 0.00

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.01

0.01 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

3.9. Building Construction
(2025)
- Unmitigated
Criteria
Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and
GHGs
(lb/day for daily, MT/yr for
annual)
14/33
209
209

0.01 < 0.005 -
210

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 663
663

0.03 0.02

2.65 674
366
366

0.03 0.05

1.02 384

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
608
608

0.03 0.02

0.07 616
366
366

0.03 0.05

0.03 383

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
296
296

0.01 0.01

0.55 300
175
175

0.01 0.03

0.21 184

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

48.9 48.9
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.09 49.6

29.0 29.0
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 30.4

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Onsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 1.45

1.21 11.3

14.1 0.03

0.47 -

0.47 0.43
-

0.43 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 1.45

1.21 11.3

14.1 0.03

0.47 -

0.47 0.43
-

0.43 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 1.04

0.87 8.08

10.1 0.02

0.33 -

0.33 0.31
-

0.31 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road 0.19

0.16 1.47

1.84 < 0.005

0.06 -

0.06 0.06
-

0.06 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.23

0.21 0.20

3.59 0.00

0.00 0.60

0.60 0.00

0.14 0.14 -
Vendor 0.04

0.01 0.40

0.22 < 0.005

0.01 0.10

0.11 0.01

0.03 0.03 -
2,630
2,630

0.11 0.02
- 2,639

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,630
2,630

0.11 0.02 -
2,639

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 1,879
1,879

0.08 0.02 -
1,885

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 311
311

0.01 < 0.005 -
312

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 649 649 0.03 0.02 2.41 659
360 360 0.03 0.05 1.01 378
15/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Daily, -
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.22

0.20 0.22 2.71

0.00 0.00

0.60 0.60

0.00 0.14

0.14 -
Vendor 0.04

0.01 0.42 0.22
< 0.005

0.01 0.10

0.11 0.01

0.03 0.03 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker 0.16

0.14 0.17 2.04

0.00 0.00

0.43 0.43

0.00 0.10

0.10 -
Vendor 0.03

0.01 0.30 0.15
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.07 0.07
< 0.005

0.02 0.02 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker 0.03

0.03 0.03 0.37

0.00 0.00

0.08 0.08

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005

0.05 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

3.11. Paving (2025)
- Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day
for daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.95

0.80 7.45 9.98

0.01 0.35
-

0.35 0.32
-

0.32 -
Equipment
Paving -

0.73 - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
16/33

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
595
595

0.03 0.02

0.06 603
360
360

0.03 0.05

0.03 377

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
431
431

0.02 0.02

0.74 437
257
257

0.02 0.04

0.31 270

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

71.4 71.4
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.12 72.4

42.6 42.6
< 0.005

0.01 0.05

44.6 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 - 1,517

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road

0.08 0.07

0.61 0.82
< 0.005

0.03 -

0.03 0.03
-

0.03 -
Equipment
Paving
-

0.06 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road

0.01 0.01

0.11 0.15
< 0.005

0.01 -

0.01 < 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Paving
-

0.01 -
-
-
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.07 0.06

0.07 0.88

0.00 0.00

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.05

0.05 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
Worker

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.08

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.02

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
17/33

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
124
124

0.01 < 0.005 -
125

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 20.6

20.6 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

20.6 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 194
194

0.01 0.01

0.02 196

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

16.2 16.2
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 16.4

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

2.67 2.67
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.71 15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.21

0.17 1.18

1.52 < 0.005

0.04 -

0.04 0.03 -

0.03 -
Equipment
Architect -

61.5 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.02

0.01 0.10

0.12 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Architect -

5.06 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
178 178 0.01 < 0.005 - 179

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 14.6

14.6 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

14.7 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.42

2.42 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.43 18/33

15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Architect - 0.92 - -
-
-
- -
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite - -
-
- -
Daily, -
-
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.54

0.00 0.00

0.12 0.12

0.00 0.03

0.03 -
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

4. Operations Emissions
Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation
By Vegetation
Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By
Vegetation Type
- Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
19/33

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
119
119

0.01 < 0.005

0.01 121

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

9.92 9.92
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 10.1

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.64 1.64
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.67 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 15223 - Rockwell Yucaipa (Construction) Detailed Report, 6/15/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —